Dynamic monopoly pricing with network externalities

1996 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 837-855 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bernard Bensaid ◽  
Jean-Philippe Lesne
1992 ◽  
Vol 65 (4) ◽  
pp. 593 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Min Chen ◽  
Dipak C. Jain

2014 ◽  
Vol 124 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kaito Hashimoto ◽  
Nobuo Matsubayashi

2006 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 910-928 ◽  
Author(s):  
Subir Bose ◽  
Gerhard Orosel ◽  
Marco Ottaviani ◽  
Lise Vesterlund

1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 199-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis M.B Cabral ◽  
David J Salant ◽  
Glenn A Woroch

2010 ◽  
Vol 100 (4) ◽  
pp. 1642-1672 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Glen Weyl

I develop a general theory of monopoly pricing of networks. Platforms use insulating tariffs to avoid coordination failure, implementing any desired allocation. Profit maximization distorts in the spirit of A. Michael Spence (1975) by internalizing only network externalities to marginal users. Thus the empirical and prescriptive content of the popular Jean-Charles Rochet and Jean Tirole (2006) model of two-sided markets turns on the nature of user heterogeneity. I propose a more plausible, yet equally tractable, model of heterogeneity in which users differ in their income or scale. My approach provides a general measure of market power and helps predict the effects of price regulation and mergers. (JEL D42, D85, L14)


2007 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 105-117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Lambertini ◽  
Raimondello Orsini

2006 ◽  
Vol 96 (5) ◽  
pp. 1706-1719 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paolo Dudine ◽  
Igal Hendel ◽  
Alessandro Lizzeri

We study dynamic monopoly pricing of storable goods in an environment where demand changes over time. The literature on durables has focused on incentives to delay purchases. Our analysis focuses on a different intertemporal demand incentive. The key force on the consumer side is advance purchases or stockpiling. In the case of storable goods, the stockpiling motive has recently been documented empirically. We show that, in this environment, if the monopolist cannot commit, then prices are higher in all periods, and social welfare is lower, than in the case in which the monopolist can commit. This is in contrast with the analysis in the literature on the Coase conjecture.


2003 ◽  
Vol 36 (8) ◽  
pp. 99-104
Author(s):  
Luca Lambertini ◽  
Raimondello Orsini

2006 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 169-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Demichelis ◽  
O. Tarola

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document