IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/yca/wpaper/1998_03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Refillable Versus Non-Refillable Containers The Impact Of Regulatory Measures On Packaging Mix And Quality Choices

Author

Listed:
  • Ida Ferrara

    (York University, Canada)

  • Charles Plourde

    (York University, Canada)

Abstract

With the continually declining percentage of soft drink sales in refillable bottles in favour of cans and PET bottles, despite a growing soft drink market, governments have become increasingly concerned about the alleged more environmentally harmful impacts of throw-away convenience packaging and tried to enact policies to induce consumers to switch to refillable glass bottles. In many cases, fully or partially refundable deposits have been opted for to provide consumers with the incentive to properly dispose of packaging, but not to switch between different container types, and thus, they may not constitute the most desirable solution. The effects of various regulatory measures on produceers' choices of packaging quality and mix in the presence of consumers with differing demand intensities are therefore analyzed to discern the least distortionary alternative.

Suggested Citation

  • Ida Ferrara & Charles Plourde, 1998. "Refillable Versus Non-Refillable Containers The Impact Of Regulatory Measures On Packaging Mix And Quality Choices," Working Papers 1998_03, York University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:yca:wpaper:1998_03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dept.econ.yorku.ca/research/workingPapers/working_papers/refill4.pdf
    File Function: First version, 1998
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Russell Cooper, 1984. "On Allocative Distortions in Problems of Self-Selection," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(4), pages 568-577, Winter.
    2. David Besanko & Shabtai Donnenfeld & Lawrence J. White, 1987. "Monopoly and Quality Distortion: Effects and Remedies," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 102(4), pages 743-767.
    3. Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman, 2002. "Garbage, Recycling, and Illicit Burning or Dumping," Chapters, in: Don Fullerton & Thomas C. Kinnaman (ed.), The Economics of Household Garbage and Recycling Behavior, chapter 2, pages 49-62, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    4. Champsaur, Paul & Rochet, Jean-Charles, 1989. "Multiproduct Duopolists," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(3), pages 533-557, May.
    5. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
    6. Dinan Terry M., 1993. "Economic Efficiency Effects of Alternative Policies for Reducing Waste Disposal," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 242-256, November.
    7. Eric Maskin & John Riley, 1984. "Monopoly with Incomplete Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(2), pages 171-196, Summer.
    8. Srinagesh, Padmanabhan & Bradburd, Ralph M, 1989. "Quality Distortion by a Discriminating Monopolist," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(1), pages 96-105, March.
    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. Daisuke Numata & Shunsuke Managi, 2012. "Demand for refilled reusable products," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 14(4), pages 421-436, October.
    2. Caroline Orset & Nicolas Barret & Aurélien Lemaire, 2017. "How consumers of plastic water bottles are responding to environmental policies?," Post-Print hal-01500900, HAL.
    3. Marion Garaus & Christian Garaus & Elisabeth Wolfsteiner & Charlotte Jermendy, 2022. "Anthropomorphism as a Differentiation Strategy for Standardized Reusable Glass Containers," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(15), pages 1-17, August.
    4. Peter Kacmary & Andrea Rosova & Marian Sofranko & Peter Bindzar & Janka Saderova & Jan Kovac, 2021. "Creation of Annual Order Forecast for the Production of Beverage Cans—The Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-14, July.

    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. S. Baranzoni & P. Bianchi & L. Lambertini, 2000. "Multiproduct Firms, Product Differentiation, and Market Structure," Working Papers 368, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    2. G. Ecchia & L. Lambertini, 1997. "Full vs Partial Market Coverage with Minimum Quality Standards," Working Papers 285, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    3. De Fraja, Giovanni, 1996. "Product line competition in vertically differentiated markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 389-414, May.
    4. Lambertini, Luca, 2018. "Coordinating research and development efforts for quality improvement along a supply chain," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 270(2), pages 599-605.
    5. Suren Basov & Svetlana Danilkina & David Prentice, 2020. "When Does Variety Increase with Quality?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 56(3), pages 463-487, May.
    6. Stole, Lars A., 2007. "Price Discrimination and Competition," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 34, pages 2221-2299, Elsevier.
    7. Acharyya, Rajat, 1998. "Monopoly and product quality: Separating or pooling menu?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 187-194, November.
    8. Cao, Wuyi & Chen, Meichen & Li, Youping, 2024. "Intermediate product versioning," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 238(C).
    9. Crawford, Gregory S & Shum, Matthew, 2007. "Monopoly Quality Degradation and Regulation in Cable Television," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 50(1), pages 181-219, February.
    10. Ahmed, Rasha & Stater, Mark, 2017. "Is energy efficiency underprovided? An analysis of the provision of energy efficiency in multi-attribute products," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 132-149.
    11. Brekke, Kurt R. & Siciliani, Luigi & Straume, Odd Rune, 2010. "Price and quality in spatial competition," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 471-480, November.
    12. Pascal Courty & Li Hao, 2000. "Sequential Screening," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 67(4), pages 697-717.
    13. N. Bora Keskin & John R. Birge, 2019. "Dynamic Selling Mechanisms for Product Differentiation and Learning," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(4), pages 1069-1089, July.
    14. Lambertini, Luca & Orsini, Raimondello & Palestini, Arsen, 2017. "On the instability of the R&D portfolio in a dynamic monopoly. Or, one cannot get two eggs in one basket," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 703-712.
    15. Nathan Berg & Jeong†Yoo Kim, 2018. "Price Discrimination in Public Healthcare," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(2), pages 181-192, June.
    16. L. Lambertini & R. Orsini, 2014. "Process Innovation and Product Quality Improvement in a Dynamic Monopoly," Working Papers wp926, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    17. Crampes, Claude & Hollander, Abraham, 1995. "Duopoly and quality standards," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 71-82, January.
    18. Acharyya, Rajat, 2005. "Quality discrimination among income constrained consumers," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 245-251, February.
    19. Luca Lambertini & Raimondello Orsini, 2015. "Quality Improvement and Process Innovation in Monopoly: A Dynamic Analysis," Working Paper series 15-12, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
    20. Preyas S. Desai & Devavrat Purohit & Bo Zhou, 2018. "Allowing Consumers to Bundle Themselves: The Profitability of Family Plans," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 37(6), pages 953-969, November.

    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:yca:wpaper:1998_03. 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: Support (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dyorkca.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.