CE or UKCA? The cost of taking back control of our own product regulations

The CE mark, visible on various products to indicate that they comply with the minimum safety, health, and environmental protection requirements, will no longer be used in Britain from 1 January 2023 as a result of Brexit. Renaud Foucart explains what options and dilemmas the government is facing as a result

Meta-Search and Market Concentration

Competing intermediaries search on behalf of consumers among a large number of horizontally differentiated sellers. Consumers either pick the best deal offered by a random intermediary, or compare the intermediaries. A higher number of deal finders has the direct effect of decreasing their search effort, but also increases the incentives for consumers to become informed. A higher share of informed consumers in turns increases the search effort of deal finders, so that the sign of the total effect is ambiguous. If the total effect of lower concentration is to increase search effort, it always decreases the price offered by sellers

The scope and limits of accounting and judicial courts intervention in inefficient public procurement

Cost inefficiencies in public procurement tend to come from two sources: corruption (moral hazard) and incompetence (adverse selection). In most countries, audit authorities are responsible for monitoring costs but do not distinguish both sources of inefficiency in their audits. Judicial courts typically rely on these cost audits, but only sanction corruption. In a model of public procurement by politicians, we study how the respective quality of the two courts affects corruption as well as cost efficiency. We find that while better courts have the direct effect of decreasing corruption, they may have a negative indirect effect on the abilities of the pool of politicians, so that the net effect on cost efficiency is ambiguous

All-pay competition with captive consumers

We study a game in which two firms compete in quality to serve a market consisting of consumers with different initial consideration sets. If both firms invest below a certain quality threshold, they only compete for those consumers already aware of their existence. Above this threshold, a firm is visible to all and the highest quality attracts all consumers. In equilibrium, firms do not choose their investment deterministically but randomize over two disconnected intervals. On the one hand, the existence of initially captive consumers introduces an anti-competitive element: holding fixed the behavior of the rival firm, a firm with a larger captive segment enjoys a higher payoff from not investing at all. On the other hand, the fact that a firm’s initially captive consumers can still be attracted by very high quality introduces a pro-competitive element: high quality investments becomes more profitable for the underdog when the captive segment of the dominant firm increases. The share of initially captive consumers therefore has a non-monotonic effect on the investment levels of both firms

Bidding for network size

We study a game were two firms compete on investment in order to attract consumers. Below a certain threshold, investment aims at attracting ex-ante indifferent users. Above this threshold firms also compete for users loyal to the other firm. We find that, in equilibrium, firms do not choose their investment deterministically but randomize over two disconnected intervals. These correspond to competing for either the entire population or only the ex-ante indifferent users. While the benefits of attracting users are identical for both firms, the value of remaining passive and not investing at all depends on a firm's loyal base. The firm with the smallest base bids more aggressively to compensate for its lower outside option and achieves a monopoly position with higher probability than its competitor

Rituals of Reason:A Choice-Based Approach to the Acceptability of Lotteries in Allocation Problems

We study revealed preferences towards the use of random procedures in allocation mechanisms. We report the results of an experiment in which subjects vote on a procedure to allocate a reward to half of them. The first possibility is an explicitly random device: the result of a lottery. The second is either an unpredictable procedure they could interpret as meritocratic, or one that is obviously arbitrary. We run all treatments with and without control. We identify an aversion to lotteries and clearly arbitrary procedures across treatments, even though, on aggregate, subjects do not believe any procedure to give them a higher probability of success and there is no correlation between beliefs and outcomes. In line with the literature, we also find evidence of a control premium in most procedures

The acceptability of lotteries in allocation problems:a choice-based approach

We report the results of two experiments on the social acceptability of random devices in allocation mechanisms. A majority of subjects do not opt for a lottery if they can rationalize an alternative mechanism as non-random. It is, however, possible to design a payoff-equivalent mechanism to the lottery that is more acceptable. Our results shed light on the real-world reliance on obscure criteria in allocation problems where lotteries seem to be simpler and more efficient

Bidding for network size

We study a game were two firms compete on investment in order to attract consumers. Below a certain threshold, investment aims at attracting ex-ante indifferent users. Above this threshold firms also compete for users loyal to the other firm. We find that, in equilibrium, firms do not choose their investment deterministically but randomize over two disconnected intervals. These correspond to competing for either the entire population or only the ex-ante indifferent users. While the benefits of attracting users are identical for both firms, the value of remaining passive and not investing at all depends on a firm's loyal base. The firm with the smallest base bids more aggressively to compensate for its lower outside option and achieves a monopoly position with higher probability than its competitor

Model choice and optimal congestion

We study the choice of transportation modes within a city where commuters have heterogeneous preferences for a car. As in standard models of externalities, the market outcome never maximizes aggregate welfare. We show that in the presence of multiple equilibria problems of coordination can worsen this result. We discuss two policy tools: taxation and traffic separation (e.g. exclusive lanes for public transportation). Setting the optimal policy is a necessary but not sufficient condition to maximize aggregate welfare. Even with a social planner maximizing aggregate welfare, a city may find itself stuck in a situation where public transportation remains inefficient and the level of congestion high