Abstract
The stand-alone-cost test has become an expensive, extensive, and time-consuming component of the regulatory practice of the U.S. Surface Transportation Board in the performance of its statutory duty to protect “captive shippers” from monopoly rail rates. A close examination of the history of its adoption and application suggests only a tenuous connection with its claimed intellectual foundations. It is time to retire this notion and replace it with something simpler and more effective and transparent.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baumol, W. J. (1987). Direct testimony. U.S. Postal Rate Commission, Docket No. R87-1 (USPS-T-3).
Baumol W. J., Panzar J. C., Willig R. D. (1982) Contestable markets and the theory of industry structure. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York
Burton M. L. (1993) Railroad deregulation, carrier behavior, and shipper response: A disaggregated analysis. Journal of Regulatory Economics 5: 417–434
Christensen Associates. (2008). A study of competition in the U.S. freight railroad industry and analysis of proposals that might enhance competition. prepared for the Surface Transportation Board, November 2008.
Ellig J. (2002) Railroad deregulation and consumer welfare. Journal of Regulatory Economics 21: 143–167
Faulhaber G. R. (1975) Cross-subsidization: Pricing in public enterprises. American Economic Review 65: 966–977
Faulhaber G. R. (2005) Cross-subsidy analysis with more than two services. Journal of Competition Law and Economics 1: 441–448
Kahn A. (1970) The economics of regulation: Principles and institutions. Wiley, New York
Pittman R. (2010) The economics of railroad ‘captive shipper’ legislation. Administrative Law Review 62: 919–936
Winston C., Corsi T. M., Grimm C. M., Evans C. A. (1990) The economic effects of surface freight deregulation. Brookings, Washington, DC
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The author is grateful for comments on an earlier version by Darryl Biggar, Nat Clarke, Gerald Faulhaber, John Fonte, Bill Huneke, Dick Klem, Henry Posner III, Lou Thompson, Jack Ventura, Nick Wills-Johnson, and the editor and two anonymous referees, and for excellent research assistance from Michael Carley. The Antitrust Division encourages independent research by its economists; the views expressed herein are entirely those of the author and are not purported to reflect those of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pittman, R. Against the stand-alone-cost test in U.S. freight rail regulation. J Regul Econ 38, 313–326 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11149-010-9130-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11149-010-9130-3