U NNATURAL MONOPOLIES IN LOCAL TELEPHONE By Richard T. Shin * and John S. Ying* Sifat-E-Sharmeen Econ 435.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Industrial Economics (Econ3400) Week 2 July 31, 2008 Room 323, Bldg 3 Semester 2, 2008 Instructor: Dr Shino Takayama.
Advertisements

F-tests continued.
Introduction Describe what panel data is and the reasons for using it in this format Assess the importance of fixed and random effects Examine the Hausman.
Hathaiwan Vongsuwan – Hengmin Zhang
Copyright©2004 South-Western 15 Monopoly. Copyright © 2004 South-Western While a competitive firm is a price taker, a monopoly firm is a price maker.
Copyright©2004 South-Western 15 Monopoly. Copyright © 2004 South-Western What’s Important in Chapter 15 Sources of Monopolies (= Price Makers = Market.
School District Consolidation William Duncombe and John Yinger The Maxwell School, Syracuse University February 2013.
Doing an Econometric Project Or Q4 on the Exam. Learning Objectives 1.Outline how you go about doing your own econometric project 2.How to answer Q4 on.
Chapter 12 Managerial Decisions for Firms with Market Power
A Two-Level Electricity Demand Model Hausman, Kinnucan, and Mcfadden.
If economic analysis is to be at all useful, then the multiproduct setting must be addressed. Concepts such as decreasing average cost and economies of.
 New reforms have been passed to modernize the Swiss electricity sector.  Legal (transmission and generation are separate legal entities) and functional.
What Explains Germany’s Rebounding Export Market Share Stephan Danninger (IMF Research Department) Fred Joutz (George Washington University) September.
1 Empirical Evaluation of the Degree of Price Transmission from the Border to the Consumers in Mozambique Xavier Cirera and Virgulino Nhate.
© John Tribe 7 Market Intervention. © John Tribe.
1 Structural Reform and Growth in Transition: A Meta-Analysis Jan Babecký Czech National Bank Tomáš Havránek Czech National Bank Charles University, Prague.
1 Why Demand Uncertainty Curbs Investment: Evidence from a Panel of Italian Manufacturing Firms Maria Elena Bontempi (University of Ferrara) Roberto Golinelli.
Testing for subadditivity of Vertically Integrated Electric Utilities.
We turn to short-run output, the gap between actual GDP and potential GDP Fluctuations in economic activity can be costly The rate of inflation tends to.
Richard T. Shin Mathematica Policy Research, Inc. John S. Ying University of Delaware and University of California, Irvine. Lecturer Chaowei Fan Illinois.
Pooled Cross Sections and Panel Data II
Antitrust Analysis Using Calibrated Economic Models Gregory J. Werden Senior Economic Counsel Antitrust Division U.S. Department of Justice The views expressed.
Monopoly While a competitive firm is a price taker, a monopoly firm is a price maker. A firm is considered a monopoly if it is the sole seller of.
The Role of Financial System in Economic Growth Presented By: Saumil Nihalani.
1 Measuring and Managing Economic Exposure Chapter 11.
12 MONOPOLY CHAPTER.
Copyright©2004 South-Western 15 Monopoly. Copyright © 2004 South-Western A firm is considered a monopoly if... it is the sole seller of its product. its.
ARE COMBINATION GAS AND ELECTRIC UTILITIES MULTIPRODUCT NATURAL MONOPOLIES? - Merrile Sing Presentation Eco 435 Date 31 January 2012.
Testing for Subadditivity of Vertically Integrated Electric Utilities Keith Gilsdorf.
Monopolistic Competition
CHAPTER 10 MEASURING ECONOMIC EXPOSURE. CHAPTER OVERVIEW I.Foreign Exchange Risk and Economic Exposure II.The Economic Consequences of Exchange Rate Changes.
ECON 6012 Cost Benefit Analysis Memorial University of Newfoundland
Copyright © 2004 South-Western Monopoly vs. Competition While a competitive firm is a price taker, a monopoly firm is a price maker. A firm is considered.
Chapter 15 notes Monopolies.
ECONOMIC HYPOTHESIS ILLUSTRATION ABOUT SOFTWARE QUALITY INFLUENCE ON BUSINESS PERFORMANCE Karthik Ramachandran.
Copyright©2004 South-Western Monopoly. Copyright © 2004 South-Western While a competitive firm is a price taker, a monopoly firm is a price maker.
1 C H A P T E R 11 1 © 2001 Prentice Hall Business PublishingEconomics: Principles and Tools, 2/eO’Sullivan & Sheffrin Entry and Monopolistic Competition.
NETWORK NEUTRALITY AND DIFFERENCE IN EFFICIENCY AMONG INTERNET APPLICATION SERVICE PROVIDERS : A META-FRONTIER ANALYSIS DAEHO LEE, JUNSECK HWANG 電管碩一 R
Subadditivity of Cost Functions Lecture XX. Concepts of Subadditivity Evans, D. S. and J. J. Heckman. “A Test for Subadditivity of the Cost Function with.
Network Economics “We know how to route packets, what we don’t know how to do is route dollars.” -- David C. Clark IS250 Spring 2010
Investigation into evidence for economies of scale in the water and sewerage industry in England and Wales Presentation of Findings Water UK City Conference,
CHAPTER 8 Managing in Competitive, Monopolistic, and Monopolistically Competitive Markets McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2014 by The McGraw-Hill Companies,
Chapter 22 Microeconomics Unit III: The Theory of the Firm.
Tutorial 1 Introduction to Economics 1. LEARNING OUTCOMES The term “economy” 2. Difference between microeconomics and macroeconomics; 3.The three basic.
Costs and Market See chapters 9-10 in Mansfield et al.
Chapter 17 Monopoly McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2008 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Monopoly CHAPTER 12. After studying this chapter you will be able to Explain how monopoly arises and distinguish between single-price monopoly and price-discriminating.
Economic Optimization Chapter 2. Chapter 2 OVERVIEW   Economic Optimization Process   Revenue Relations   Cost Relations   Profit Relations 
Over-skilling and Over- education Peter J Sloane, Director, WELMERC, School of Business and Economics, Swansea University, IZA, Bonn and University of.
Lecture 7 Monetary policy in New Keynesian models - Introducing nominal rigidities ECON 4325 Monetary policy and business fluctuations Hilde C. Bjørnland.
Agricultural Policy Effects on Land Allocation Allen M. Featherstone Terry L. Kastens Kansas State University.
M Thomas Is the IPO Pricing Process Efficient? Michelle Lowry G William Schwert (Latest Draft February 2003)
ECON 201 WEEK 7 Finishing Up Monopolies: Natural Monopolies.
Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) Opportunities and Impacts for Taiwanese and Malaysian Companies Study undertaken by the Asian Strategy and Leadership.
Copyright©2004 South-Western 15 Monopoly. Copyright © 2004 South-Western Monopoly While a competitive firm is a price taker, a monopoly firm is a price.
MARKET APPRAISAL. Steps in Market Appraisal Situational Analysis and Specification of Objectives Collection of Secondary Information Conduct of Market.
Copyright © 2006 Nelson, a division of Thomson Canada Ltd. 15 Monopoly.
Evaluation Institute Qatar Comprehensive Educational Assessment (QCEA) 2008 Summary of Results.
FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY SPILLOVERS: Firm Level Evidence from Chilean industrial sector. Leopoldo LabordaDaniel Sotelsek University of.
1 14- Competition 8. Overview 8- 2 After studying this chapter, you should be able to: Name the primary market structures and describe their characteristics.
F-tests continued.
Industrial Economics (Econ3400)
Natural Monopolies 2017.
Natural Monopolies 2017.
Comparison of Market Structures
Chow test.
Subadditivity of Cost Functions
The costs of organization
Multinational Financial Management Alan Shapiro 7th Edition J
Game Theory & Natural Monopolies
Presentation transcript:

U NNATURAL MONOPOLIES IN LOCAL TELEPHONE By Richard T. Shin * and John S. Ying* Sifat-E-Sharmeen Econ 435

OVERVIEW Overcome the serious data problems of past telecommunications cost studies Global subadditivity tests show that the cost function is definitely not subadditive. Benefits to breaking up the monopoly outputs of existing LECs substantially outweigh the potential losses in efficiency. Permit entry and increasing competition in local exchange markets. Furthermore, given the competitive nature of long distance service, it is doubtful that the predivestiture Bell System was a natural monopoly.

I NTRODUCTION The divestiture of AT&T on Jan 1, 1984 was based on alleged antitrust violations. But the underlying economic rationale was that AT&T was not a natural monopoly. Assessment about natural monopoly was never consistent in previous studies for two reasons: i) Choice of data-using time series data ii) Level of aggregation-using small number of observations with high correlation

Past researchers obtained biased estimates of scale elasticities. Shin(1988) has pointed out, if technological changes are large and rapid and not properly captured then even if no scale of economies are present, the time series estimations can produce a cost function that exhibits high economies of scale. Shin and Ying examined the subadditivity of LECs. Their approach overcomes these shortcomings because their data consist of a pooled cross-sectional sample of 58 LECs from 1976 to 1983.

T HE COST MODEL To determine the technological structure of telephone local exchange carriers, they used a dual approach multi product cost function. Long run cost function: C = C(w, y, a, b, t) where C =long-run total costs w = vector of factor prices, y = vector of outputs, a = vector of operating characteristics, b = indicator variable for the Baby Bells, t = time trend. Assumption: this cost function is twice-differentiable and can be approximated by a second-order Taylor series expansion.

TRANSLOG FLEXIBLE FUNCTIONAL FORM

D ATA AND V ARIABLES

E STIMATION RESULT In the trans log cost function, 65 parameters are estimated. 34 are significant at the 1 % level, 7 more are significant at the 5% level, and 5 are significant at the 10% level. the estimated parameters for the second-order output terms are of relevance here. They are all less than one and of mixed signs. Contrast these results to those in Evans and Heckman (1983) or Charnes, Cooper, and Sueyoshi (1988), where they are of implausibly large magnitudes.

For the input prices, the cost elasticities or factor shares at the sample mean are all positive with plausible magnitudes. The key technology variable in this model is the percentage electronic access variable (EA). The negative, significant but small first-order term indicates that as more access lines are converted to electronic access, costs will decline slightly.

Another characteristic variable, the number of central offices (CO), also has a direct effect on costs due to its positive and significant first-order coefficient. Finally, the dummy variable (B), denoting the 22 Bell operating companies, has a positive and significant first-order coefficient, suggesting that these companies tend to have higher costs than non-Bell companies.

S UBADDITIVITY OF LEC S

B ASIC RESULTS In 1983, of the 21,170 possible configurations, only 6985, or 33%, result in a single firm being able to produce at a lower cost than two firms. The degree to which a monopoly is relatively more efficient seems to lessen as the firm's size, as measured by access lines, increases. What is unambiguous is that the cost structure of local exchange carriers is not globally sub additive

The summary results for likewise indicate that costs are not subadditive in any year. In fact, costs are not subadditive for any of the 464 observations. The results also show that the potential gains to multifirm production exceed possible losses.

These empirical results for LECs and the Baby Bells would seem to suggest that AT&T was also unlikely to be a natural monopoly before its breakup. Using positive marginal cost, Sing and ying strengthened the case that LECS are not natural monopolies.

CONCLUSION This article overcomes the serious data problems in previous studies by focusing on local exchange carriers. Besides shedding new light on the AT&T debate, also has important and current policy implications for local exchange By using an improved pooled cross section time series sample, we are able to obtain precise, plausible estimation parameters. Furthermore, the estimated cost function is well behaved.

Although the overall scale elasticity indicates slight scale economies at the sample mean, the global subadditivity tests show that the cost function is definitely not subadditive. The results suggest that the benefits to breaking up the monopoly outputs of existing local exchange carriers substantially outweigh the potential losses in efficiency. The subadditivity tests with fixed numbers of central offices also find superadditive costs.

Thank You