Skip to main content
Log in

Regulating Private Infrastructure Investment: Optimal Pricing for Access to Essential Facilities

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

Abstract

This paper analyzes optimal pricing for access to essential facilities in a competitive environment. The focus is on investment incentive issues arising from regulation under complete information. To that end, examining the provision of a natural monopoly infrastructure with unlimited capacity, it is shown that the fixed component of a regulated access price can be structured so as to induce a “race” between market participants to provide the infrastructure. An appropriate pricing formula can ensure that a single firm chooses to invest at the socially optimal time (taking into account producer and consumer surplus) despite the immediate access granted to rivals and the non-existence of government subsidies. Under the optimal pricing formula, firms choose their investment timing based on their desire to pre-empt their rivals. This pricing formula is efficient (a two part tariff), implementable ex post, and robust to alternative methods of asset valuation (replacement or historical cost). When firms are not identical, the access pricing formula resembles, in equilibrium, a fully distributed cost methodology.

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

  • Armstrong, M., S. Cowan, and J. Vickers. 1994. Regulatory Reform: Economic Analysis and British Experience. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Armstrong, M., C. Doyle, and J. Vickers. 1996. “The Access Pricing Problem: A Synthesis.” Journal of Industrial Economics 44(2): 131–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J., M. F. Koehn, and R. D. Willig. 1987. “How Arbitrary is ‘Arbitrary’? or, Toward the Deserved Demise of Full Cost Allocation.” Public Utilities Fortnightly 120(5): 16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baumol, W. J., and J. G. Sidak. 1994. Toward Competition in Local Telephony. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dasgupta, P., and J. E. Stiglitz. 1980. “Uncertainty, Industrial Structure, and the Speed of R&D.” Bell Journal of Economics 11(1): 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Fontenay, C., and J. S. Gans. 2000. Extending Market Power Through Vertical Integration. Working Paper Melbourne Business School (www.mbs.unimelb.edu.au/jgans/research.htm)

  • Demsetz, H. 1968. “Why Regulate Utilities?” Journal of Law and Economics 11(1): 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fudenberg, D., and J. Tirole. 1985. “Preemption and Rent Equalization in the Adoption of New Technology.” Review of Economic Studies 52(2): 383–401.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gans, J. S., and S. Stern. 2000. “Incumbency and R&D Incentives: Licensing the Gale of Creative Destruction.” Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 9(4): 485–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gans, J. S., and P. L. Williams. 1999. “Access Regulation and the Timing of Infrastructure Investment.” Economic Record 79(229): 127–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart, O., and J. Tirole. 1990. “Vertical Integration and Market Foreclosure.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (Microeconomics) 205–286.

  • Hausman, J. A. 1997. “Valuing the Effect of Regulation on New Services in Telecommunications.” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity (Microeconomics) 1–38.

  • Katz, M. L., and C. Shapiro 1987. “R&D Rivalry with Licensing or Imitation.” American Economic Review 77(3): 402–420.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, S. P. 1996. “Asset Valuation and Access to Essential Facilities Under Part IIIA of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth).” In Deregulation of Public Utilities: Current Issues and Perspectives, edited by M. Richardson Melbourne: Center for Corporate Law and Securities Regulation, 94–116.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, S. P., and R. Maddock. 1996. Unlocking the Infrastructure. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • King, S. P., and R. Maddock. 1999. “Light-handed Regulation of Access in Australia: Negotiation with Arbitration.” Information Economics and Policy 11(1): 1–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laffont, J.-J., and J. Tirole. 1993. A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laffont, J.-J., and J. Tirole. 1994. “Access Pricing and Competition.” European Economic Review 38(4): 1673–1710.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laffont, J.-J., and J. Tirole. 1999. Competition in Telecommunications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandy, D. M. 2000. “Killing the Goose That May Have Laid the Golden Egg: Only the Data Knows Whether Sabotage Pays.” Journal of Regulatory Economics. 17(2): 157–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinganum, J. F. 1989. “On the Timing of Innovation.” In Handbook of Industrial Organization, Volume 1, edited by R. Schmalansee and R. Willig. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey, P., and J. Tirole. 1996. “A Primer on Foreclosure.” In Handbook of Industrial Organization, Volume 3, edited by R. Schmalansee and R. Willig. Amsterdam: Elsevier (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Riordan, M. H. 1992. “Regulation and Preemptive Technology Adoption.” RAND Journal of Economics 23(3): 334–349.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirole, J. 1988. The Theory of Industrial Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, J. 1995. “Competition and Regulation in Vertically Related Markets.” Review of Economic Studies 62(1): 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hippel, E. 1988. The Sources of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Gans, J.S. Regulating Private Infrastructure Investment: Optimal Pricing for Access to Essential Facilities. Journal of Regulatory Economics 20, 167–189 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011155312792

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1011155312792

Keywords

Navigation