市场收费歧视的限度

M. Tremblay
{"title":"市场收费歧视的限度","authors":"M. Tremblay","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3729378","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Platforms often use fee discrimination within their marketplace (e.g., Amazon, eBay, and Uber specify a variety of merchant fees). To better understand the impact of marketplace fee discrimination, we develop a model that allows us to determine equilibrium fee and category decisions that depend on the extent of fee discrimination available to the platform and we highlight how our fee discrimination strategies can be derived in practice using data from airbnb.com. In addition, we find that greater fee discrimination allows the platform to serve more markets in its marketplace but also increases fees in high surplus markets. However, if the platform enters into retail, then the platform reduces its fees and generates greater retail competition. These effects mitigate distortions from fee discrimination and improve welfare. In terms of policy, we show that (1) banning fee discrimination and platform entry is detrimental to welfare, (2) a vertical merger within a retail market mitigates fee distortions but is often worse than an equilibrium with platform entry into retail, and (3) taxing the platform in retail (not merchants) levels the retail playing field and can generate a Pareto improvement upon a policy that bans platform retail entry.","PeriodicalId":319022,"journal":{"name":"Economics of Networks eJournal","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Limits of Marketplace Fee Discrimination\",\"authors\":\"M. Tremblay\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3729378\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Platforms often use fee discrimination within their marketplace (e.g., Amazon, eBay, and Uber specify a variety of merchant fees). To better understand the impact of marketplace fee discrimination, we develop a model that allows us to determine equilibrium fee and category decisions that depend on the extent of fee discrimination available to the platform and we highlight how our fee discrimination strategies can be derived in practice using data from airbnb.com. In addition, we find that greater fee discrimination allows the platform to serve more markets in its marketplace but also increases fees in high surplus markets. However, if the platform enters into retail, then the platform reduces its fees and generates greater retail competition. These effects mitigate distortions from fee discrimination and improve welfare. In terms of policy, we show that (1) banning fee discrimination and platform entry is detrimental to welfare, (2) a vertical merger within a retail market mitigates fee distortions but is often worse than an equilibrium with platform entry into retail, and (3) taxing the platform in retail (not merchants) levels the retail playing field and can generate a Pareto improvement upon a policy that bans platform retail entry.\",\"PeriodicalId\":319022,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Economics of Networks eJournal\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Economics of Networks eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3729378\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Economics of Networks eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3729378","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

平台通常在其市场中使用费用歧视(例如,亚马逊、eBay和Uber指定了各种商家费用)。为了更好地理解市场费用歧视的影响,我们开发了一个模型,使我们能够根据平台可获得的费用歧视程度来确定平衡费用和类别决策,我们强调了如何使用airbnb.com的数据在实践中推导出我们的费用歧视策略。此外,我们发现,更大的费用歧视可以让平台在其市场中服务更多的市场,但也会增加高剩余市场的费用。但是,如果平台进入零售,那么平台就会降低其费用,从而产生更大的零售竞争。这些影响减轻了收费歧视造成的扭曲,并改善了福利。在政策方面,我们表明(1)禁止费用歧视和平台进入不利于福利,(2)零售市场内的垂直合并减轻了费用扭曲,但通常比平台进入零售业的均衡更糟糕,(3)对零售平台(而不是商家)征税使零售竞争环境更加公平,并可以在禁止平台零售进入的政策上产生帕累托改进。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Limits of Marketplace Fee Discrimination
Platforms often use fee discrimination within their marketplace (e.g., Amazon, eBay, and Uber specify a variety of merchant fees). To better understand the impact of marketplace fee discrimination, we develop a model that allows us to determine equilibrium fee and category decisions that depend on the extent of fee discrimination available to the platform and we highlight how our fee discrimination strategies can be derived in practice using data from airbnb.com. In addition, we find that greater fee discrimination allows the platform to serve more markets in its marketplace but also increases fees in high surplus markets. However, if the platform enters into retail, then the platform reduces its fees and generates greater retail competition. These effects mitigate distortions from fee discrimination and improve welfare. In terms of policy, we show that (1) banning fee discrimination and platform entry is detrimental to welfare, (2) a vertical merger within a retail market mitigates fee distortions but is often worse than an equilibrium with platform entry into retail, and (3) taxing the platform in retail (not merchants) levels the retail playing field and can generate a Pareto improvement upon a policy that bans platform retail entry.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Education-Occupation Mismatch and Social Networks for Hispanics in the US: Role of Citizenship Monitoring Network Changes in Social Media Platform Liability and Innovation The Bipartisan Case for Labeling as a Content Moderation Method: Findings from a National Survey Dealer Networks and the Cost of Immediacy
×
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