Why Prices Rise Faster than they Fall

For decades the fact that input price hikes are passed on faster than input price cuts was thought to be well explained by the assumption that competitive firms fully pass on all input price changes, so they can't price asymmetrically, so asymmetric pricing behavior is limited to oligopolies, firms that do all sorts of bizarre things (finding yet another one being no big deal). However, Peltzman found no effect of concentration on such asymmetric pricing, raising the puzzle of why competitive industries generally price asymmetrically. This paper solves that puzzle.

The effect of bank structure and profitability on firm openings

An examination of the effects of price and availability of credit from commercial lending organizations on the start-up rates of new businesses within specific markets, finding that profitable and competitive banking markets are associated with higher rates of firm births.Banking structure ; Industrial location

Search, Costly Price Adjustment and the Frequency of Price Changes - Theory and Evidence

We establish a new empirical finding that the intensity of search for the best price affects the frequency of nominal price changes. This relationship holds in very different economies and for various proxies for search intensity. We derive this relationship from a model of monopolistically competitive firms that face menu costs of changing nominal prices and heterogeneous consumers who search for the best price. We discuss alternative explanations and argue that they do not explain the observed correlations. Our results establish that pricing policies differ endogenously in the cross-section. This may be an important feature missing in many macroeconomic models based on nominal rigidities with exogenous frequency of price changes.Nominal rigidity; search; price adjustment

Prices, delay, and the dynamics of trade

We characterize the dynamics of trading patterns and market composition when trade is bilateral, finding a trading partner is costly, prices are determined by bargaining, and preferences are private information. We show that equilibrium is inefficient and exhibits delay as sellers price discriminate between buyers with different values. As frictions vanish, transaction prices are asymptotically competitive and the welfare loss of inefficient trading approaches zero, even though the trading patterns continue to be inefficient and delay persists.Publicad

Arbitrage, market definition and monitoring a time series approach

This article considers the application to regional price data of time series methods to test stationarity, multivariate cointegration and exogeneity. The discovery of stationary price differentials in a bivariate setting implies that the series are rendered stationary by capturing a common trend and we observe through this mechanism long-run arbitrage. This is indicative of a broader market definition and efficiency. The problem is considered in relation to more than 700 weekly data points on gasoline prices for three regions of the US and similarly calibrated simulated series. The discovery of a single common trend is consistent with competitive pricing and a broad market definition, but the finding of a single weakly exogenous variable affects this conclusion

Competitive Reactions and the Cross-Sales Effects of Advertising and Promotion

How do competitors react to each other's price-promotion and advertising actions? How do these reactions influence the net sales impact we observe? We answer these questions by performing a large-scale empirical study of the short-run and long-run reactions to promotion and advertising shocks in over 400 consumer product categories, over a four-year time span. Competitive reaction can be passive, accommodating or retaliatory. We first develop a series of expectations on the type and intensity of reaction behavior, and on the moderators of this behavior. These expectations are assessed in two ways. First, vector-autoregressive models quantify the short-run and long-run effect of a promotion or advertising action on competitive sales and on competitive reactions. By cataloging the numerical results, we are able to formulate empirical generalizations of reaction behavior ("how do they react?"). Second, we estimate structural models of reaction intensity, in function of various market and competitive characteristics ("what are the drivers of reaction?"). Finally, by comparing our findings on reaction behavior with those on promotion and advertising effectiveness, we are able to evaluate competitive reaction behavior ("are they reacting as they should?"). A major finding is that competitive reaction is predominantly passive. When it is present, it is usually retaliatory in the same instrument, but accommodating or retaliatory in a different instrument. There are very few long-run consequences of any type of reaction behavior. We also report on several moderating effects that are in line with expectations, and that support the presence of a certain amount of rationality in competitive reaction behavior. The net impact of the over-time effects of advertising and price-promotion attacks, competitive reactions and the sales effectiveness of each, is that competitors' sales are generally not affected, and especially not in the long run. We weigh the evidence that this sales neutrality is "natural" (i.e., due to the nature of consumer response) versus "managed" (i.e., due to the vigilance and effectiveness of competitors), and conclude in favor of the former.advertising;competitive reactions;impulse response functions;price promotions

TECHNOLOGY VALUATION DISTRIBUTIONS WITH HETEROGENEOUS ADOPTERS

This paper examines technology benefit allocation between an innovating firm and heterogeneous technology adopters. Using a triangular distribution of adopter innovation value, we find that as the upper bound increases, optimal innovation price increases, but at a slower rate. Similarly, as the lower bound decreases, price decreases and producer benefits increase. Finally, greater producer heterogeneity leads to greater producer benefits from innovation in non-competitive markets. An empirical application of the model is considered, bovine somatotropin adoption on dairy farms. The model generates an intuitive explanation of the common finding that average adopters are making zero or negative profits.Research and Development/Tech Change/Emerging Technologies,

Prices, Delay, and the Dynamics of Trade

We characterize the dynamics of trading patterns and market composition when trade is bilateral, finding a trading partner is costly, prices are determined by bargaining, and preferences are private information. We show that equilibrium is inefficient and exhibits delay as sellers price discriminate between buyers with different values. As frictions vanish, transaction prices are asymptotically competitive and the welfare loss of inefficient trading approaches zero, even though the trading patterns continue to be inefficient and delay persists.

Did residential electricity rates fall after retail competition? a dynamic panel analysis

A key selling point for the restructuring of electricity markets was the promise of lower prices, that competition among independent power suppliers would lower electricity prices to retail customers. There is not much consensus in earlier studies on the effects of electricity deregulation, particularly for residential customers. Part of the reason for not finding a consistent link with deregulation and lower prices was that the removal of the transitional price caps led to higher prices. In addition, the timing of the removal of price caps coincided with rising fuel prices, which were passed on to consumers in a competitive market. Using a dynamic panel model, we analyze the effect of participation rates, fuel costs, market size, a rate cap and a switch to competition for 16 states and the District of Columbia. We find that an increase in participation rates, price controls, a larger market, and high shares of hydro in electricity generation lower retail prices, while increases in natural gas and coal prices increase rates. The effects of a competitive retail electricity market are mixed across states, but generally appear to lower prices in states with high participation and raise prices in states that have little customer participation.Price regulation