Regulating Powerful Platforms: Evidence from Commission Fee Caps in On-Demand Services

Z. Li, Gang Wang
{"title":"Regulating Powerful Platforms: Evidence from Commission Fee Caps in On-Demand Services","authors":"Z. Li, Gang Wang","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3871514","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Owners of multi-sided platforms typically possess strong power over complementors. Such power asymmetry gives platform owners the edge on setting high platform fees to capture most of the surplus created on their platforms. While there is a heated debate on regulating these powerful platforms, the lack of empirical studies hinders the progress towards evidence-based policymaking. This research empirically investigates this regulatory issue in the context of on-demand delivery. Delivery platforms (e.g., DoorDash, Grubhub, and Uber Eats) charge restaurants a commission fee, which can be as high as 30% of the order amount. To support small businesses, recent regulatory scrutiny has attempted to cap the commission fees for independent restaurants. This research empirically evaluates the effects of platform fee regulations on restaurants, by investigating recent regulations across 14 cities and states in the United States. Our analyses show that independent restaurants in regulated cities (i.e., those paying reduced commission fees) experience a decline in orders and revenue, whereas chain restaurants (i.e., those paying the original fees) see an increase in orders and revenue. This intriguing finding suggests that chain restaurants, not independent restaurants, benefit from the regulations that were intended to support independent restaurants. We find that platforms’ responses to the regulations may explain the negative effects on independent restaurants. That is, after cities enact policies to cap platforms’ commission fees, delivery platforms become less likely to recommend independent restaurants to consumers, and instead turn to promote chain restaurants or nearby restaurants from non-regulated cities. Moreover, delivery platforms increase their delivery fees for consumers in regulated cities, suggesting that these platforms attempt to cover the loss of commission revenue by charging customers more. These findings provide empirical evidence for policymakers to evaluate the effectiveness of platform fee regulations.","PeriodicalId":430354,"journal":{"name":"IO: Empirical Studies of Firms & Markets eJournal","volume":"60 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IO: Empirical Studies of Firms & Markets eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3871514","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Owners of multi-sided platforms typically possess strong power over complementors. Such power asymmetry gives platform owners the edge on setting high platform fees to capture most of the surplus created on their platforms. While there is a heated debate on regulating these powerful platforms, the lack of empirical studies hinders the progress towards evidence-based policymaking. This research empirically investigates this regulatory issue in the context of on-demand delivery. Delivery platforms (e.g., DoorDash, Grubhub, and Uber Eats) charge restaurants a commission fee, which can be as high as 30% of the order amount. To support small businesses, recent regulatory scrutiny has attempted to cap the commission fees for independent restaurants. This research empirically evaluates the effects of platform fee regulations on restaurants, by investigating recent regulations across 14 cities and states in the United States. Our analyses show that independent restaurants in regulated cities (i.e., those paying reduced commission fees) experience a decline in orders and revenue, whereas chain restaurants (i.e., those paying the original fees) see an increase in orders and revenue. This intriguing finding suggests that chain restaurants, not independent restaurants, benefit from the regulations that were intended to support independent restaurants. We find that platforms’ responses to the regulations may explain the negative effects on independent restaurants. That is, after cities enact policies to cap platforms’ commission fees, delivery platforms become less likely to recommend independent restaurants to consumers, and instead turn to promote chain restaurants or nearby restaurants from non-regulated cities. Moreover, delivery platforms increase their delivery fees for consumers in regulated cities, suggesting that these platforms attempt to cover the loss of commission revenue by charging customers more. These findings provide empirical evidence for policymakers to evaluate the effectiveness of platform fee regulations.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
监管强大的平台:来自按需服务佣金上限的证据
多边平台的所有者通常对互补者拥有强大的权力。这种权力不对称使平台所有者在设定高额平台费用以获取其平台上产生的大部分盈余方面具有优势。虽然对这些强大平台的监管存在激烈的争论,但缺乏实证研究阻碍了循证决策的进展。本研究在按需配送的背景下对这一监管问题进行了实证研究。外卖平台(如DoorDash、Grubhub和Uber Eats)向餐馆收取佣金,最高可达订单金额的30%。为了支持小企业,最近的监管审查试图限制独立餐馆的佣金。本研究通过调查美国14个城市和州的最新法规,实证评估了平台收费法规对餐馆的影响。我们的分析表明,在受监管的城市中,独立餐厅(即那些支付佣金减少的餐厅)的订单和收入下降,而连锁餐厅(即那些支付原始费用的餐厅)的订单和收入则有所增加。这一有趣的发现表明,连锁餐厅,而不是独立餐厅,受益于旨在支持独立餐厅的法规。我们发现,平台对法规的反应可以解释对独立餐厅的负面影响。也就是说,在城市颁布了限制平台佣金的政策后,外卖平台不太可能向消费者推荐独立餐厅,而是转向推广来自不受监管城市的连锁餐厅或附近餐厅。此外,外卖平台提高了受监管城市消费者的配送费用,这表明这些平台试图通过向客户收取更多费用来弥补佣金收入的损失。这些发现为政策制定者评估平台收费监管的有效性提供了实证依据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Order Statistics Approaches to Unobserved Heterogeneity in Auctions Who Bears the Load? Carbon Taxes and Electricity Markets Innovation Networks and Business-Stealing Designing a Competitive Monotone Signaling Equilibrium Rising Markups and the Role of Consumer Preferences
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1