¬ã°Q¤é´Á |
|
||
¬ã°Q¦aÂI |
¥x¤jªÀ·|¬ì¾Ç°|¹q¤Æ±Ð«Ç |
||
°Q½×ÃD¥Ø |
ÃD¥Ø |
§@ªÌ |
¤åÄm¥X³B |
Welfare Implications of Price Discrimination in Input Markets |
Hong Hwang and Chin-Sheng Chen |
Working Paper |
|
³ø§i¤H |
³¯ª÷²± |
||
°Ñ¥[¤Hû |
¶ÀÂE¡B±d§ÊÀ®¡B´^¥¿¯E¡B½²©úªÚ¡B±i·ç¶³¡B´¿ÀRªK¡B¤ý¨ÎµX¡B³¯§»©ö¡B °ª°ê峯¡BÒ\¥ú»õ¡BªL®Ë¦p¡B§õ´Â¥\¡B©P«~¦° ¡B¤Bi¤¯¡B³¯ª÷²±¡BÄÁáJ³®¡B §d©yÁ¾ |
||
ºKn |
This paper analyzes the price decision of an input monopolist who
serves local firms that compete with a backward integrated chain store in the
respective final good market. The input monopolist can choose either
third-degree discriminatory pricing or uniform pricing. We compare the input
price and the level of social welfare between the two pricing schemes. By setting
a more general cost structure in the final good industry, we have found that
the input monopolist if adopts discriminatory pricing may charge a more
efficient local firm for a lower input price. This result runs contrary to that
made by Katz (1985) and Yoshida (2000), Moreover, price discrimination in the
input market does not change the total output of the final good, but it can
enhance social welfare due to its more uniform distribution of outputs in the
final good markets. This result is different from that in Schmalensee (1981)
who proves that price discrimination is welfare-improving only if it can
raise total output. Therefore, the policy implication of price discrimination
in input markets is quite different from that in final good markets. |