Strategic Resource Dependence

We consider a situation where an exhaustible-resource seller faces demand from a buyer who has a perfect substitute but there is a time-to-build delay for the substitute. We that find in this simple framework the basic implications of the Hotelling model (1931) are reversed: over time the stock declines but supplies increase up to the point where the buyer decides to switch. Under such a threat of demand change, the supply does not reflect the true current resource scarcity but leads to increased future scarcity, felt during the transition to the substitute supplies. The analysis suggests a perspective on costs of oil dependence.Dynamic Bilateral Monopoly, Markov-Perfect Equilibrium, Depletable Resources, Energy, Alternative Fuels, Oil Dependence

Public Investment as Commitment

Should public assets such as infrastructure, education, and the environment earn the same return as private investments? We consider if time-inconsistent decision-makers can gain from institutions that enforce cost-benefit rules on large projects that influence the economy as a whole. Long-term public investments provide commitment to current preferences, leading to investment biases in such assets. The institutionalized cost-benefit prudence eliminates such biases but we show that this behavioral rule has no general social value: it implements Pareto efficiency if and only if preferences are time-consistent, and decreases welfare otherwise. We find that the long-term cost-benefit prudence is fundamentally about income transfers to the future, implying that efficient behavioral rules should target savings directly rather than the division of current investment resources.public investments, cost-benefit analysis, inconsistent preferences

Forward Trading in Exhaustible-Resource Oligopoly

We analyze oligopolistic exhaustible-resource depletion when firms can trade forward contracts on deliveries, a market structure prevalent in many resource commodity markets. We find that this organization of trade has substantial implications for resource depletion. As firms’ interactions become infinitely frequent, resource stocks become fully contracted and the symmetric oligopolistic equilibrium converges to the perfectly competitive Hotelling (1931) outcome. Asymmetries in stock holdings allow firms to partially escape the procompetitive effect of contracting: a large stock provides commitment to leave a fraction of the stock uncontracted. In contrast, a small stock provides commitment to sell early, during the most profitable part of the equilibrium.Forward trading, exhaustible resources, oligopoly pricing

Market power in an exhaustible resource market: The case of storable pollution permits

Motivated by the structure of existing pollution permit markets, we study the equilibrium path that results from allocating an initial stock of storable permits to a large polluting agent and a competitive fringe. A large agent selling permits in the market exercises market power no differently than a large supplier of an exhaustible resource. However, whenever the large agent’s endowment falls short of its efficient endowment –allocation profile that would exactly cover its emissions along the perfectly competitive path– the market power problem disappears, much like in a durable-good monopoly. We illustrate our theory with two applications: the carbon market that may eventually develop under the Kyoto Protocol and beyond and the US sulfur market.Exhaustible resources, market power, pollution markets, durable-good monopoly

Market Power in a Storable-Good Market: Theory and Applications to Carbon and Sulfur Trading

We consider a market for storable pollution permits in which a large agent and a fringe of small agents gradually consume a stock of permits until they reach a long-run emissions limit. The subgame-perfect equilibrium exhibits no market power unless the large agent’s share of the initial stock of permits exceeds a critical level. We then apply our theoretical results to a global market for carbon dioxide emissions and the existing US market for sulfur dioxide emissions. We characterize competitive permit allocation profiles for the carbon market and find no evidence of market power in the sulfur market.

On Coase and Hotelling

It has been long recognized that an exhaustible-resource monopsonist faces a commitment problem similar to that of a durable-good monopolist. Indeed, Hörner and Kamien (2004) demonstrate that the two problems are formally equivalent under full commitment. We show that there is no such equivalence in the absence of commitment. The existence of a choke price at which the monopsonist adopts the substitute (backstop) supply divides the surplus between the buyer and the sellers in a way that is unique to the resource model. Resource sellers receive a surplus share independently of their cost heterogeneity; a result in sharp contrast with the durable-good monopoly logic. The resource buyer can distort the equilibrium through delayed purchases, but the Coase conjecture arises under extreme patience (zero discount rate).Durable goods, exhaustible resources, coase conjecture

A Note on Market Power in an Emission Permits Market with Banking

In this paper, we investigate the effect of market power on the equilibrium path of an emission permits market in which firms can bank current permits for use in later periods. In particular, we study the market equilibrium for a large (potentially dominant) firm and a competitive fringe with rational expectations. Rather than providing a full description of the equilibrium solution for all combinations of permits allocations and cost structures, we provide a characterization of the equilibrium solution for a few illustrative cases. For example, we find that if the large firm enjoys a dominant position in the after-banking market, it can always extend this dominant position to the market during the banking period regardless of the allocation of the stock (bank) of permits.

Public investment as commitment

Shouldpublicassetssuchasinfrastructure,education, andtheenvironmentearn the same return as private investments? We consider if time-inconsistent decisionmakers can gain from institutions that enforce cost-benefit rules on large projects that influence the economy as a whole. Long-term public investments provide commitment to current preferences, leading to investment biases in such assets. The institutionalized cost-benefit prudence eliminates the biases but we show that this behavioral rule has no general social value: it implements Pareto efficiency if andonlyifpreferencesaretime-consistent, anddecreaseswelfareotherwise. Wefind that the long-term cost-benefit prudence is fundamentally about income transfers to the future, implying that efficient behavioral rules should target savings directly rather than the division of current investment resources