Who Should Pay for Certification?

Who does, and who should initiate costly certification by a third party under asymmetric quality information, the buyer or the seller? Our answer — the seller — follows from a non–trivial analysis revealing a clear intuition. Buyer–induced certification acts as an inspection device, whence seller–induced certification acts as a signalling device. Seller–induced certification maximizes the certifier’s profit and social welfare. This suggests the general principle that certification is, and should be induced by the better informed party. The results are reflected in a case study from the automotive industry, but apply also to other markets – in particular the financial market

Who Should Pay for Certification?

Who does, and who should initiate costly certification by a third party under asymmetric quality information, the buyer or the seller? Our answer — the seller — follows from a non–trivial analysis revealing a clear intuition. Buyer–induced certification acts as an inspection device, whence seller–induced certification acts as a signalling device. Seller–induced certification maximizes the certifier’s profit and social welfare. This suggests the general principle that certification is, and should be induced by the better informed party. The results are reflected in a case study from the automotive industry, but apply also to other markets – in particular the financial market.asymmetric information; certi?cation; information acquisition; inspection; lemons; middlemen; signaling

Platform Ownership

Lecture on the first SFB/TR 15 meeting, Gummersbach, July, 18 - 20, 2004We develop a general theoretical framework of trade on a platform on which buyers and sellers interact. The platform may be owned by a single large, or many small independent or vertically integrated intermediaries. We provide a positive and normative analysis of the impact of platform ownership structure on platform size. The strength of network effects is important in the ranking of ownership structures by induced platform size and welfare. While vertical integration may be welfare-enhancing if network effects are weak, monopoly platform ownership is socially preferred if they are strong. These are also the ownership structures likely to emerge

Who Should Pay for Certification?

Who does, and who should initiate costly certification by a third party under asymmetric quality information, the buyer or the seller? Our answer - the seller - follows from a nontrivial analysis revealing a clear intuition. Buyer-induced certification acts as an inspection device, seller-induced certification as a signalling device. Seller-induced certification maximizes the certifier’s profit and social welfare. This suggests the general principle that certification is, and should be induced by the better informed party. The results are reflected in a case study from the automotive industry, but apply also to other markets - in particular the financial market.asymmetric information, certification, information acquisition, inspection, lemons, middlemen, signaling

Firm dynamics in East Germany: first empirical results

In this paper, we report results of an ongoing empirical analysis of firm dynamics in East Germany. After discussing specifics of a newly available data set with information on more than 100.000 firms, we analyze patterns of business starts and failures. Furthermore, we present preliminary results on employment, revenue and labor productivity growth in East German firms. They suggest that large East German enterprises are characterized by significant labor shedding and small or no nominal revenue growth, resulting in an apparently impressive gain in labor productivity. Small firms turn out to be the carriers of employment growth. On average, they experience the highest revenue growth rates. However, the combination of revenue and employment growth yields labor productivity increases well below those of larger firms. --

Platform Ownership

Lecture on the first SFB/TR 15 meeting, Gummersbach, July, 18 - 20, 2004We develop a general theoretical framework of trade on a platform on which buyers and sellers interact. The platform may be owned by a single large, or many small independent or vertically integrated intermediaries. We provide a positive and normative analysis of the impact of platform ownership structure on platform size. The strength of network effects is important in the ranking of ownership structures by induced platform size and welfare. While vertical integration may be welfare-enhancing if network effects are weak, monopoly platform ownership is socially preferred if they are strong. These are also the ownership structures likely to emerge.Two-Sided Markets; Network Effects; Intermediation; Product Diversity

Platform Ownership..

We develop a theoretical framework of trade on a platform on which buyers and sellers interact, and compare the impact of different platform ownership structures. If two-sided network effects are strong, monopoly ownership induces more trade than dispersed ownership and is therefore socially preferable. Independent of the strength of network effects, monopoly ownership dominates a club-like ownership structure where incumbent owners can exclude potential entrants. Under dispersed ownership, vertical integration tends to increase welfare as it allows the internalization of demand externalities. Allowing incumbent platform owners to exclude potential entrants hurts buyers but can raise welfare.

Das Mannheimer Unternehmenspanel : Konzept und Entwicklung

"Eines der größten Defizite in der Arbeitsmarktforschung, nicht nur in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland, ist auf den Mangel an Mikrodaten zur Arbeitskräftenachfrage zurückzuführen. Mit dem im Aufbau befindlichen Mannheimer Unternehmenspanel soll diesem Mißstand begegnet werden. In der Arbeit werden Datenquelle und Aufbau des Panels beschrieben und mit in der Bundesrepublik erhältlichen Alternativen und Möglichkeiten verglichen. Die Arbeit zeigt skizzenhaft geplante Auswertungen des Panels auf. Sie schließt mit Anmerkungen zum Ausbau der Kooperation zwischen Wissenschaft und Praxis, wie sie mit dem vorliegenden Projekt beschrieben wurde." (Autorenreferat)Panel - Konzeption, Datengewinnung

Market Transparency, Adverse Selection, and Moral Hazard

We study the effects of improvements in market transparency on eBay on seller exit and continuing sellers’ behavior. An improvement in market transparency by reducing strategic bias in buyer ratings led to a significant increase in buyer valuation especially of sellers rated poorly prior to the change, but not to an increase in seller exit. When sellers had the choice between exiting—a reduction in adverse selection—and improved behavior—a reduction in moral hazard—, they preferred the latter because of lower cost. Increasing market transparency improves on market outcomes