Skip to main content
Log in

Killing the Goose That May Have Laid the Golden Egg: Only the Data Know Whether Sabotage Pays

  • Published:
Journal of Regulatory Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A lively debate has developed concerning the incentive for a price-regulated input monopolist to engage in non-price discrimination if it vertically integrates into downstream markets. This paper identifies the key industry characteristics that determine whether such discrimination is likely, and studies both theoretically and numerically the tradeoffs among three important characteristics in the simplest extant model. The incentive to discriminate is theoretically ambiguous, but data for the US telecommunications industry indicate that discrimination is likely in the absence of policy-induced countervailing incentives. Countervailing policies include direct penalties for discriminatory behavior, forcing vertical autonomy, and fostering upstream competition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beard, T. R., D. L. Kaserman, and J. W. Mayo. 1999. “Regulation, Vertical Integration, and Sabotage.” Manuscript (March).

  • Economides, N. 1998. “The Incentive for Non-Price Discrimination by an Input Monopolist.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 16: 271–284.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn, A. E., and T. J. Tardiff. 1998. “Affidavit before the Public Service Commission of Missouri in the Matter of the Application of Southwestern Bell Long Distance for Provision of In-Region, InterLATA Services in Missouri.” (November).

  • MacAvoy, P. W., D. L. Weisman, and M. A. Williams. “Should Local Telephone Companies be Allowed to Enter the Long-Distance Market? A Regulatory Conundrum.” Manuscript (February).

  • Reiffen, D. 1998. “A Regulated Firm' Incentive to Discriminate: A Reevaluation and Extension of Weisman' Result.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 14: 79–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibley, D. S., and D. L. Weisman. 1998a. “Raising Rivals’ Costs: The Entry of an Upstream Monopolist into Downstream Markets.” Information Economics and Policy 10: 451–470.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sibley, D. S., and D. L. Weisman. 1998b. “The Competitive Incentives of Vertically Integrated Local Exchange Carriers: An Economic and Policy Analysis.” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 17: 74–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirole, J. 1989. The Theory of Industrial Organization. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisman, D. L. 1998. “The Incentive to Discriminate by a Vertically Integrated Firm: A Reply.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 14: 87–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisman, D. L. 1995. “Regulation and the Vertically Integrated Firm: The Case of RBOC Entry into Interlata Long Distance.” Journal of Regulatory Economics 8: 249–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weisman, D. L. 1999. “Vertical Integration and Exclusionary Behavior in Network Industries.” Presented at the Rutgers University 12th Annual Western Conference, San Diego, California (July 7–9).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mandy, D.M. Killing the Goose That May Have Laid the Golden Egg: Only the Data Know Whether Sabotage Pays. Journal of Regulatory Economics 17, 157–172 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008191911289

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008191911289

Keywords

Navigation