The impact of transportation asymmetry on the choice of a spatial price policy

  • Jen-Te YaoEmail author
In Honor of Shin-Kun Peng


This paper studies the strategic choice of a spatial price policy between mill pricing and uniform-delivered pricing (UDP) under transportation asymmetry. Mill pricing in the model emerges as an equilibrium price policy, but it contains different types of strategic interaction, depending on the level of discrepancy between two firms’ transportation rates. If the transportation rate discrepancy is not too great, then mill pricing is a dominant strategy. When the discrepancy is large enough, mill pricing is viewed as a M-matching strategy, whereby the low-transportation-cost firm prefers matching the rival’s strategy, but the high-transportation-cost firm does not do so. There is no “Prisoner’s Dilemma” like the argument that Thisse and Vives (Am Econ Rev 78(1):122–137, 1988, AER) proposes, and there is no robustness for firms to choose a UDP policy like Kats and Thisse (in: Ohta and Thisse (eds) Does economic space matter? St Martin’s, New York, 1993) do. Our study matches the current trend of technology advancement in transportation.


Price policy Mill pricing Uniform-delivered pricing 

JEL Classification

R10 L13 L53 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest.


  1. Aguirre I, Martin AM (2001) On the strategic choice of spatial price policy: the role of the pricing game rules. Econ Bull 12(2):1–7Google Scholar
  2. Anderson SP, de Palma A, Thisse J-F (1989) Spatial price policies reconsidered. J Ind Econ 38(1):1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckmann MJ (1973) Spatial oligopoly as a noncooperative game. Int J Game Theory 2:263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beckmann MJ (1976) Spatial price policies revisited. Bell J Econ 7(2):619–630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. d’Aspremont C, Gabszewicz JJ, Thisse J-F (1979) On Hotelling’s stability in competition. Econometrica 47(5):1145–1151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dasgupta P, Maskin E (1986) The existence of equilibrium in discontinuous economic games. I and II: theory. Rev Econ Stud 53:1–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. de Palma A, Labbe M, Thisse J-F (1986) On the existence of price equilibria under mill and uniform delivered prices. In: Norman G (ed) Spatial pricing and differentiated markets. Pion Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. Eber N (1997) A note on the strategic choice of spatial price discrimination. Econ Lett 55:419–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Furlong WJ, Slotsve GA (1983) Will that be pickup or delivery?: An alternative spatial pricing strategy. Bell J Econ 4(1):271–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Greenhut ML (1981) Spatial pricing in the United States, West Germany and Japan. Economica 48:79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Greenhut ML, Norman G, Hung C-S (1987) The economics of imperfect competition: a spatial approach. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  12. Greenhut ML, Ohta H (1972) Monopoly output under alternative spatial pricing techniques. Am Econ Rev 62(4):705–713Google Scholar
  13. Gronberg T, Meyer J (1981) Transport inefficiency and the choice of spatial pricing mode. J Reg Sci 21:541–549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hobbs BF (1986) Mill pricing versus spatial price discrimination under Bertrand and Cournot spatial competition. J Ind Econ 35:173–191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Holahan WL (1975) The welfare effects of spatial price discrimination. Am Econ Rev 65:498–503Google Scholar
  16. Hotelling H (1929) Stability in competition. Econ J 39:41–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hwang H, Mai CC (1990) Effects of spatial price discrimination on output, welfare, and location. Am Econ Rev 80(3):567–575Google Scholar
  18. Kats A, Thisse J-F (1993) Spatial oligopolies with uniform delivered pricing. In: Ohta H, Thisse J-F (eds) Does economic space matter?. St Martin’s, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  19. Lederer PJ (2011) Competitive delivered pricing by mail-order and Internet retailers. Netw Spat Econ 11(2):315–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lederer PJ, Hurter AP (1986) Competition of firms: discriminatory pricing and location. Econometrica 54(3):623–640CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Norman G (1981) Uniform pricing as an optimal spatial pricing policy. Economica 48(189):87–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Osborne MJ, Pitchik C (1987) Equilibrium in Hotelling’s model of spatial competition. Econometrica 55:911–922CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Phlips L (1988) The economics of price discrimination. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  24. Schuler RE, Hobbs BF (1982) Spatial price duopoly under uniform delivered pricing. J Ind Econ 31:175–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Shilony Y (1977) Mixed pricing in oligopoly. J Econ Theory 14:373–388CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Thisse J-F, Vives X (1988) On the strategic choice of spatial price policy. Am Econ Rev 78(1):122–137Google Scholar
  27. Yao J-T, Lai F-C (2005) Incentive consistency and the choice of a spatial pricing mode. Ann Reg Sci 40(3):583–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhang M, Sexton RJ (2001) Fob or uniform delivered prices: strategic choice and welfare effects. J Ind Econ 49(2):197–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Japan Section of the Regional Science Association International 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsFu Jen Catholic UniversityNew Taipei CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations