Pareto Improvement in Monopoly Regulation Using Pre-Donation

Saglam, Ismail (2021): Pareto Improvement in Monopoly Regulation Using Pre-Donation.

Abstract

Revelation principle implies that given any admissible social welfare function, the outcome of Baron and Myerson's (1982) (BM) optimal direct-revelation mechanism under incentive constraints cannot be dominated by any other mechanism in expected utilities. However, since the expected total surplus varies with a change in the social welfare function, Pareto improvements should be possible if the monopolist and consumers can agree, by means of side payments that reveal no additional information to the regulator, on the use of an alternative social welfare function which would generate a lower expected deadweight loss. We check the validity of this intuition by integrating the BM mechanism with an induced cooperative bargaining model where unilateral pre-donation by consumers or the producer is allowed. Under this new mechanism producer's pre-donation in the ex-ante stage always leads to ex-ante Pareto improvement while a certain amount of it completely eliminates the expected deadweight loss. Moreover, if optimally designed in the interim stage, the producer's pre-donation may also lead under some cost parameters to interim (and also (ex-post) Pareto improvement. Consumers, on the other hand, have no incentive to make a unilateral pre-donation, nor to reverse the optimal pre-donation of the monopolist.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Monopoly regulation; cooperative bargaining; pre-donation.
• Subjects: C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C78 - Bargaining Theory ; Matching Theory; D - Microeconomics > D4 - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design > D42 - Monopoly; L - Industrial Organization > L5 - Regulation and Industrial Policy > L51 - Economics of Regulation

References

Akin N, Platt B, Sertel MR (2011) The n-person Kalai-Smorodinsky bargaining solution under manipulation. Review of Economic Design 15:147-162.

Akyol E (2008) Nash bargaining solution under predonation. Master's Thesis, Bilkent University.

Baron D, Myerson R (1982) Regulating a monopolist with unknown costs. Econometrica 50:911-930.

Dasgupta PS, Hammond PJ, Maskin ES (1979) The implementation of social choice rules: Some results on incentive compatibility. Review of Economic Studies 46:185-216.

Harris M, Townsend RM (1981) Resource allocation under asymmetric Information. Econometrica 49:33-64.

Kalai E (1977) Proportional solutions to bargaining situations: interpersonal comparisons of utility. Econometrica 45:1623-1630.

Kalai E, Smorodinsky M (1975) Other solutions to Nash's bargaining problem. Econometrica 43:513-518.

Loeb M, Magat WA (1979) A decentralized method for utility regulation. Journal of Law and Economics 22:399-404.

Myerson RB (1979) Incentive compatibility and the bargaining problem. Econometrica 47:61-74.

Nash JF (1950) The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18:155-162.

Orbay B (2003) Kalai-Smorodinsky and Maschler-Perles solutions under predonation. Advances in Economic Design, Murat R. Sertel, S. Koray (eds.), pp. 205-216, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Raiffa H (1953) Arbitration schemes for generalized two-person games. In: Kuhn HW, Tucker AW (eds) Contributions to the theory of games, volume II (AM-28). Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp. 361-387.

Rawls J (1972) A theory of justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Saglam I (2021) Bridging bargaining theory with the regulation of a natural monopoly. Review of Economic Design, forthcoming, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10058-021-00263-6.

Sertel MR (1992) The Nash bargaining solution manipulated by pre-donations is Talmudic. Economics Letters 40:45-55.

Sertel MR, Orbay B (1998) Nash bargaining solution under pre-donation and collusion in a duopoly. METU Development Journal 4:585-599.