Regulation, Competition and Liberalization

In many countries throughout the world, regulators are struggling to determine whether and how to introduce competition into regulated industries. This essay examines the complexities involved in the liberalization process. While stressing the importance of case-specific analyses, this essay distinguishes liberalization policies that generally are pro-competitive from corresponding anti-competitive liberalization policiesCompetition, Regulation, Liberalization

Principles of regulatory policy design

The author contrasts command-and-control regulation (tight control of water purification, for example) with more flexible forms, including incentive regulation (such as price cap regulation), potential regulation (providing for closer scrutiny if enough customers complain), and reactive rather than proactive policies (the firm proposing actions, the regulatory saying yes or no). He contrasts informing regulation (for example, requiring that consumers be informed about ingredients in a product) and enforcing regulation (for example, prohibiting the use of certain chemicals in foods). A country's institutional structure can limit the regulators'potential for commitment, he says -- especially if regulators are limited in their ability to deliver rewards or penalties. The scope and function of regulation may also be fairly limited when technological conditions allow competition to discipline producers. Sophisticated buyers with economic power may reduce the need for regulatory control, and rapid technological change can render comprehensive command-and-control regulation ineffective or debilitating. Many forces operate simultaneously, making regulatory design a complex undertaking. Inertia is one such influence. Regulatory policies that once served an important purpose sometimes persist even though they no longer serve that purpose -- sometimes because they favor a constituency that convinces the regulator to keep the control in place. Subsidies and tariff protection often continue long past the time needed to promote the development of an infant industry, for example. When there is limited public outcry against continuing the special treatment, and the affected firms strongly urge its continuance, the regulator may be convinced to continue special treatment that no longer serves the public interest. Regulation may also be affected by the regulators'personal ambition. When regulators are"captured"by regulated firms -- diverted from the goal of protecting consumers through the promise of personal rewards for favorable treatment of the firms -- regulation may not serve society's best interest. Even if regulators are not motivated by self-interest, their ideas of what is best for society may differ from those of other government officials or of society at large. When that happens, which goals are pursued depends largely on the autonomy regulators that are granted and on the balance of power among government bodies.Regulation should be viewed in this large context to be understood fully.Administrative&Regulatory Law,Environmental Economics&Policies,National Governance,Economic Theory&Research,Insurance&Risk Mitigation

Incentives for Sabotage in Vertically Related Industries

We show that the incentives a vertically integrated supplier may have to disadvantage or "sabotage" the activities of downstream rivals vary with both the type of sabotage and the nature of downstream competition. Cost-increasing sabotage is typically profitable under both Cournot and Bertrand competition. In contrast, demand-reducing sabotage is often profitable under Cournot competition, but unprofitable under Bertrand competition. Incentives for sabotage can vary non-monotonically with the degree of product differentiation.Regulation, Vertical Integration, Access Pricing, Sabotage

Does the Form of Physician Compensation Affect the Quality of Care in Medicaid HMOS?

In the United States a growing fraction of Medicaid participants are enrolled in Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs). The HMOs contract with physicians to provide health care services to the enrollees. Generally the physicians are compensated either via fee for service (FFS) or capitated arrangements. This paper investigates whether the means by which the physicians are compensated influences the quality of care received by enrollees. Using data for all Medicaid HMO enrollees in a large state, we find that enrollees in HMOs that pay their Primary Care Physicians (PCPs) exclusively via FFS arrangements are more likely to receive services for which the HMO’s PCPs receive additional compensation. Further, these enrollees are less likely to receive services for which the HMO’s PCPs do not receive additional compensation. These findings suggest that financial incentives may influence the behavior of PCPs in Medicaid HMOs, and thus the health care received by Medicaid participants enrolled in HMOs.

Incentives for Anticompetitive Behavior by Public Enterprises

We examine the incentives that public enterprises may have to undertake anticompetitive activities. These activities include setting prices below marginal cost, raising the operating costs of existing rivals, erecting entry barriers to preclude the operation of new competitors, and circumventing regulations designed to foster competition. We find that public enterprises often have stronger incentives to pursue these activities than do their private, profit-maximizing counterparts.

Privatization, Information and Incentives

In this paper, the choice between public and private provision of goods and services is considered. In practice, both modes of operation involve significant delegation of authority, and thus appear quite similar in some respects. The argument here is that the main difference between the two mod- concerns the transactions cats faced by the government when attempting to intervene in the delegated production activities. Such intervention is generally less costly under public ownership than under private ownership. The greater ease of intervention under public ownership can have its advantages; but the fact that a promise not to intervene is more credible under private production can also have beneficial incentive effects, The Fundamental Privatization Theorem (analogous to The Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics) is presented, providing conditions under which government production cannot improve upon private production. The restrictiveness of these conditions is evaluated.

Incentives for Sabotage in Vertically Related Industries

We show that the incentives a vertically integrated supplier may have to disadvantage or "sabotage" the activities of downstream rivals vary with both the type of sabotage and the nature of downstream competition. Cost-increasing sabotage is typically profitable under both Cournot and Bertrand competition. In contrast, demand-reducing sabotage is often profitable under Cournot competition, but unprofitable under Bertrand competition. Incentives for sabotage can vary non-monotonically with the degree of product differentiation

Employing endogenous access pricing to enhance incentives for efficient upstream operation

Endogenous access pricing (ENAP) is an alternative to the more traditional form of access pricing that sets the access price to reflect the regulator’s estimate of the supplier’s average cost of providing access. Under ENAP, the access price reflects the supplier’s actual average cost of providing access, which varies with realized industry output. We show that in addition to eliminating the need to estimate industry output accurately and avoiding a divergence between upstream revenues and costs, ENAP can enhance the incentive of a vertically integrated producer to minimize its upstream operating cost

An Optimal Rule for Patent Damages Under Sequential Innovation

We analyze the optimal design of damages for patent infringement in settings where the patent of an initial innovator may be infringed by a follow-on innovator. We consider damage rules that are linear combinations of the popular "lost profit" (LP) and "unjust enrichment" (UE) rules, coupled with a lump-sum transfer between the innovators. We identify conditions under which a linear rule can induce the socially optimal levels of sequential innovation and the optimal allocation of industry output. We also show that, despite its simplicity, the optimal linear rule achieves the highest welfare among all rules that ensure a balanced budget for the industry, and often secures substantially more welfare than either the LP rule or the UE rule