Journal of Regulatory Economics最新文献

We consider a market structure with three mobile providers, two of which are vertically integrated with nationwide coverage. The third provider (an entrant) invests in partial coverage and needs to rent access from one of its rivals. Competition between the vertically integrated providers in the access market may drive them to offer an access price structure that benefits the entrant. For a given level of the access price, the entrant benefits from an access price structure that reduces its need to invest. If asymmetric regulation is imposed whereby only one of the vertically integrated firms (the incumbent) face restrictions on which access price structure it can offer, the access price could be higher than in an unregulated economy. This provides a cautionary tale for competition authorities as well as sector-specific regulators, both of which typically only impose restrictions on the incumbent. The paper is motivated by the Norwegian mobile market, where the competition authorities imposed a fine of 78 million euros on Telenor (the dominant incumbent) for allegations of the abuse of market power by changing the access price structure and thereby hampering an entrant’s investment incentives.

Antitrust laws in many countries prohibit the setting of differential prices across buyers who compete against each other. In this paper, we consider a setting in which a downstream manufacturer has non-controlling interest in its rival and both buy input from an upstream monopolist. Under price discrimination, a lower price is charged to the manufacturer that holds the rival’s shares, which mitigates the anticompetitive effect of horizontal shareholding. When the ownership structure is endogenized, we find that, relative to uniform pricing, price discrimination discourages the formation of horizontal shareholding which is also socially desirable. The analysis is extended to the case of cross shareholding in which each manufacturer holds shares of its rival and to downstream price competition.

We examine the role of regulatory independence on electricity generation performance in India. Electricity generation in India is exposed to several regulatory jurisdictions with varying levels of regulatory independence. Based on the level of regulatory independence, we classify Indian coal fired power plants into two groups, and evaluate their performance over the period 2005–14 using the non-radial directional distance function model in a meta-frontier framework. We find that plants under relatively less independent state regulators are more inefficient than plants under the largely independent central regulator. Differences in independence between state and central regulators account for nearly half of the inefficiency of plants under the state regulation. Regression analysis reveals that the channels of causation of regulatory independence on plant performance are through its effects on coal consumption and electricity generation. Our results suggest the need for two policy interventions: (1) providing greater independence to state regulators for bridging the performance gaps between plants subject to different regulators, and (2) a more forward-looking norm setting process through the use of benchmarking techniques by identifying best practices and performance among plants.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions are an effective strategy to prevent and control COVID-19 transmission in the community. However, the timing and stringency to which these measures have been implemented varied between countries and regions. The differences in stringency can only to a limited extent be explained by the number of infections and the prevailing vaccination strategies. Our study aims to shed more light on the lockdown strategies and to identify the determinants underlying the differences between countries on regional, economic, institutional, and political level. Based on daily panel data for 173 countries and the period from January 2020 to October 2021 we find significant regional differences in lockdown strategies. Further, more prosperous countries implemented milder restrictions but responded more quickly, while poorer countries introduced more stringent measures but had a longer response time. Finally, democratic regimes and stronger manifested institutions alleviated and slowed down the introduction of lockdown measures.