IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bol/bodewp/282.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Price Discrimination and the Location Choice of a Durable Goods Monopoly

Author

Abstract

The traditional analysis of the location choice by a monopoly has been developed thinking of static monopolies, namely monopolies selling non-durable goods. At the same time, the spatial approach has been widely used in applications to the choice of product design. In a spatial context, the question is if monopoly power leads to the plant location which minimizes transport costs. In terms of product characteristics the question is whether a monopoly will produce the variety which maximizes the social welfare I do not treat here the case of multiplant and multiproduct monopoly. The definition of product specification by way of spatial models, following Hotelling (1931), is usually one of horizontal differentiation, where the consumers do not unanimously rank the different specifications of a good footnote .

Suggested Citation

  • P. Garella, 1997. "Price Discrimination and the Location Choice of a Durable Goods Monopoly," Working Papers 282, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    • Handle: RePEc:bol:bodewp:282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://amsacta.unibo.it/5028/1/282.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dos Santos Ferreira, Rodolphe & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 1996. "Horizontal and vertical differentiation: The Launhardt model," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 485-506, June.
    2. Layson, Stephen K, 1994. "Market Opening under Third-Degree Price Discrimination," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(3), pages 335-340, September.
    3. Anderson, S. & De Palma, A. & Thisse, J-F., 1989. "Social Surplus And Profitability Under Different Spacial Pricing Policies," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 1989010, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    4. Mark Armstrong & John Vickers, 1991. "Welfare Effects of Price Discrimination by a Regulated Monopolist," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 22(4), pages 571-581, Winter.
    5. Gabszewicz, Jean Jaskold & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 1986. "On the Nature of Competition with Differentiated Products," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 96(381), pages 160-172, March.
    6. Jeremy Bulow, 1986. "An Economic Theory of Planned Obsolescence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 101(4), pages 729-749.
    7. Malueg, David A. & Schwartz, Marius, 1994. "Parallel imports, demand dispersion, and international price discrimination," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(3-4), pages 167-195, November.
    8. Patrick DeGraba, 1995. "Buying Frenzies and Seller-Induced Excess Demand," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(2), pages 331-342, Summer.
    9. JASKOLD GABSZEWICZ, Jean & THISSE, Jacques-François, 1986. "Spatial competition and the location of firms," LIDAM Reprints CORE 713, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    10. Maria Paz Espinosa, 1992. "Delivered Pricing, FOB Pricing, and Collusion in Spatial Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 64-85, Spring.
    11. Kahn, Charles M, 1986. "The Durable Goods Monopolist and Consistency with Increasing Costs," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 54(2), pages 275-294, March.
    12. Vincenzo Denicolo' & Paolo Garella, 1999. "Rationing in a Durable Goods Monopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(1), pages 44-55, Spring.
    13. Bulow, Jeremy I, 1982. "Durable-Goods Monopolists," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 90(2), pages 314-332, April.
    14. Coase, Ronald H, 1972. "Durability and Monopoly," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(1), pages 143-149, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Doriani Lingga & Damiana Simanjuntak, 2022. "Location Choice of a Partially–Private Monopoly Supplier," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 10(1), pages 106-121, June.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Edward Kutsoati & Jan Zabojnik, 2001. "Durable Goods Monopoly, Learning-by-doing and "Sleeping Patents"," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 0105, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
    2. Coury, Tarek & Petkov, Vladimir P., 2008. "Delegation and commitment in durable goods monopolies," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 41-55, May.
    3. Francesco Nava & Pasquale Schiraldi, 2019. "Differentiated Durable Goods Monopoly: A Robust Coase Conjecture," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(5), pages 1930-1968, May.
    4. Gregory Goering, 1994. "Managerial Incentives and Durable Goods Monopoly," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 1(2), pages 271-282.
    5. Michael Waldman, 2003. "Durable Goods Theory for Real World Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(1), pages 131-154, Winter.
    6. Gregory E. Goering, 2010. "Corporate social responsibility, durable-goods and firm profitability," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(7), pages 489-496.
    7. Cerquera Dussán, Daniel, 2007. "Durable Goods, Innovation and Network Externalities," ZEW Discussion Papers 07-086, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Sagasta, Amagoia & Saracho, Ana I., 2008. "Mergers in durable goods industries," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 691-701, December.
    9. Kim, Jae-Cheol & Kim, Min-Young & Chun, Se-Hak, 2014. "Property tax and its effects on strategic behavior of leasing and selling for a durable-goods monopolist," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 132-144.
    10. Fethke, Gary & Jagannathan, Raj, 2000. "Why would a durable good monopolist also produce a cost-inefficient nondurable good?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 793-812, July.
    11. Gregory Goering & Michael Pippenger, 2009. "Exchange Rates and Concurrent Leasing and Selling in Durable-Goods Monopoly," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 37(2), pages 187-196, June.
    12. Amagoia Sagasta & José M. Usategui, 2015. "Purchase and rental subsidies in durable-oligopolies," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 213(2), pages 11-40, June.
    13. John Boyce & Jeffrey Robert Church & Lucia Vojtassak, "undated". "Capacity Constraints in Durable Goods Monopoly: Coase and Hotelling," Working Papers 2012-07, Department of Economics, University of Calgary, revised 08 Aug 2012.
    14. Michael Waldman, 2004. "Antitrust Perspectives for Durable-Goods Markets," CESifo Working Paper Series 1306, CESifo.
    15. Saracho, Ana I., 2011. "Licensing information goods," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 187-199, March.
    16. Waldman, Michael, 1997. "Eliminating the Market for Secondhand Goods: An Alternative Explanation for Leasing," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(1), pages 61-92, April.
    17. Susanna Esteban & Matthew Shum, 2007. "Durable-goods oligopoly with secondary markets: the case of automobiles," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(2), pages 332-354, June.
    18. Gregory Goering & Michael Pippenger, 2003. "Dynamic consistency and monopoly," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 31(2), pages 188-194, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bol:bodewp:282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sebolit.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.