单边和多边平台垄断的动态

Rosa M. Abrantes-Metz, Albert D. Metz
{"title":"单边和多边平台垄断的动态","authors":"Rosa M. Abrantes-Metz, Albert D. Metz","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3692861","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this paper we develop a general model of one-sided and two-sided platform businesses and apply it to a monopolist framework. We have a particular interest in how the social loss and other metrics depend on the strength of the network (direct or indirect) effect. We study how network effects impact monopoly power, how the deadweight loss decomposes between market power and the unpriced network externality, and how cross-subsidies relate to the strength of the network effects. We find that the stronger the network effect, the larger the optimal size of the platform and the greater the deadweight loss, while the smaller is the monopolist’s profit margin. In the two-sided setting, we explore the social benefits of allowing positive profit on one side to subsidize price on the other side below cost. We find that under some of the more extreme parameterizations we consider, a regulated platform required to break-even on both sides of the platform (rather than just in total) could be socially less desirable than the unregulated monopolist. This result obtains infrequently across the parameterizations we study, but it is a possibility.","PeriodicalId":18516,"journal":{"name":"Microeconomics: Production","volume":"94 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Dynamics of Single- and Multi-Sided Platform Monopolies\",\"authors\":\"Rosa M. Abrantes-Metz, Albert D. Metz\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3692861\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this paper we develop a general model of one-sided and two-sided platform businesses and apply it to a monopolist framework. We have a particular interest in how the social loss and other metrics depend on the strength of the network (direct or indirect) effect. We study how network effects impact monopoly power, how the deadweight loss decomposes between market power and the unpriced network externality, and how cross-subsidies relate to the strength of the network effects. We find that the stronger the network effect, the larger the optimal size of the platform and the greater the deadweight loss, while the smaller is the monopolist’s profit margin. In the two-sided setting, we explore the social benefits of allowing positive profit on one side to subsidize price on the other side below cost. We find that under some of the more extreme parameterizations we consider, a regulated platform required to break-even on both sides of the platform (rather than just in total) could be socially less desirable than the unregulated monopolist. This result obtains infrequently across the parameterizations we study, but it is a possibility.\",\"PeriodicalId\":18516,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Microeconomics: Production\",\"volume\":\"94 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Microeconomics: Production\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3692861\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Microeconomics: Production","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3692861","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在本文中,我们建立了一个单边和双边平台业务的一般模型,并将其应用于垄断框架。我们对社会损失和其他指标如何依赖于网络的强度(直接或间接)效应特别感兴趣。我们研究了网络效应如何影响垄断力,无谓损失如何在市场力和未定价的网络外部性之间分解,以及交叉补贴如何与网络效应的强度相关。我们发现,网络效应越强,平台的最优规模越大,无谓损失越大,而垄断者的利润率越小。在双边环境下,我们探讨了允许一方的正利润补贴另一方低于成本的价格的社会效益。我们发现,在我们考虑的一些更极端的参数化情况下,一个需要在平台两侧(而不仅仅是全部)实现收支平衡的受监管平台,在社会上可能比不受监管的垄断者更不可取。这个结果在我们研究的参数化中很少得到,但这是一种可能性。
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 Dynamics of Single- and Multi-Sided Platform Monopolies
In this paper we develop a general model of one-sided and two-sided platform businesses and apply it to a monopolist framework. We have a particular interest in how the social loss and other metrics depend on the strength of the network (direct or indirect) effect. We study how network effects impact monopoly power, how the deadweight loss decomposes between market power and the unpriced network externality, and how cross-subsidies relate to the strength of the network effects. We find that the stronger the network effect, the larger the optimal size of the platform and the greater the deadweight loss, while the smaller is the monopolist’s profit margin. In the two-sided setting, we explore the social benefits of allowing positive profit on one side to subsidize price on the other side below cost. We find that under some of the more extreme parameterizations we consider, a regulated platform required to break-even on both sides of the platform (rather than just in total) could be socially less desirable than the unregulated monopolist. This result obtains infrequently across the parameterizations we study, but it is a possibility.
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
Pricing the Pharmaceuticals When the Ability to Pay Differs: Taking Vertical Equity Seriously Dual Role Platforms and Search Order Distortion Monopoly, Product Quality and Information Disclosure Production Approach Markup Estimators Often Measure Input Wedges Successful, but not Too Much: Managing Platform Complementors in the Presence of Network Effects
×
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