Germany does not have minimum wages, but there is currently a renewed debate about their introduction. As collective bargaining is largely handled at the sectoral level, one idea is to adopt sectoral minimum wages, for example by negotiating them within collective bargaining. In some sectors, there is already an informal wage this way, but this could be formalized. Given this idea of sectoral minimum wages, it is of interest to see which sectors would support them.
Ronald Bachmann, Thomas Bauer and Hanna Kröger use a survey of 800 firms in 8 sectors and uncover some interesting patterns. It looks like minimum wages are most supported where they would raise barriers of entry for competitors. This means that agreeing on a minimum wage is getting very close to cartelization. This is a feature of the fact that negotiations are done at the sectoral level. It would lead to a reduction in the number of firms, and likely to a reduction in employment as well, but for a different reason than usual with minimum wages: the cartelization reduces output and thus the labor force required for production. I suspect that if the minimum wage were set nationwide, though, this kind of support would largely vanish.
Showing posts with label competition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label competition. Show all posts
Market competition and product quality
There is common perception that more competition can lead to lower quality, as firms try to lower prices. Of course, this presupposes that buyers do not require quality, or that the trade-off between prices and quality is tilted towards giving up quality. Thus, a lowering of quality cannot be a general phenomenon, but must be limited to some good. One area where we would think that quality is important and would not be traded off is health care. Yet there is evidence that where competition increased, lower quality has been provided. How could that be?
Kurt R. Brekke, Luigi Siciliani and Odd Rune Straume provide a theory that can can explain this under particular circumstances: First, sellers need to be motivated in the sense that they care for quality. Second the marginal utility they get from profits is decreasing as they make higher profits, which implies risk-aversion. These assumption does not seem unreasonable, especially for health care provision (but not for the financial industry, for example, where the bonus payment is so important). The intuition of more competition yielding lower quality is rather twisted: increase competition, and prices fall. Profit margins are smaller, hence also profits. With a higher marginal utility of profit, sellers try harder to increase profits, and quality is a dimension that is available. How to counteract this? Make people care more about quality (how?), tax lower quality (how?). Not obvious.
Kurt R. Brekke, Luigi Siciliani and Odd Rune Straume provide a theory that can can explain this under particular circumstances: First, sellers need to be motivated in the sense that they care for quality. Second the marginal utility they get from profits is decreasing as they make higher profits, which implies risk-aversion. These assumption does not seem unreasonable, especially for health care provision (but not for the financial industry, for example, where the bonus payment is so important). The intuition of more competition yielding lower quality is rather twisted: increase competition, and prices fall. Profit margins are smaller, hence also profits. With a higher marginal utility of profit, sellers try harder to increase profits, and quality is a dimension that is available. How to counteract this? Make people care more about quality (how?), tax lower quality (how?). Not obvious.
Shopping hours competition
Firms not only compete with prices, but also with product characteristics. In the retail market, an important characteristic is the opening times. In some areas, for example in much of Europe, shopping times are regulated, the motivation being to give retail workers somewhat "normal" working hours. In some countries, for example the United States, there is much less regulation, and shops have extensive if not around-the-clock hours to satisfy King Customer.
Miguel Flores, who must have won the award for the shortest paper title, studies whether regulation is welfare enhancing when incumbent retailers can prevent entry of competitors by strategically choosing opening times. This essentially comes down to a model of competition through product differentiation. The standard result that regulation is bad when there is little diversity (regulation cannot promote differentiation) and good when there is a lot of it still holds here. The subtlety of the paper is to consider a situation where the incumbent chooses hours of operation, the competitor chooses to enter and its hours, and then they compete on hours. It is thus a two-dimensional space with entry deterrence on one.
Miguel Flores, who must have won the award for the shortest paper title, studies whether regulation is welfare enhancing when incumbent retailers can prevent entry of competitors by strategically choosing opening times. This essentially comes down to a model of competition through product differentiation. The standard result that regulation is bad when there is little diversity (regulation cannot promote differentiation) and good when there is a lot of it still holds here. The subtlety of the paper is to consider a situation where the incumbent chooses hours of operation, the competitor chooses to enter and its hours, and then they compete on hours. It is thus a two-dimensional space with entry deterrence on one.
The imperfect market for re-insurance
The insurance market is thought to be rather competitive, at least for the most common risks. That is in part because insurance companies are willing to take risks thanks to re-insurance, where they can insure large event risks and to some degree over-exposure. But there are rather few actors on the re-insurance market. Is this bad, and does it have an impact on the insurance market?
Sabine Lemoyne de Forges, Ruben Bibas and Stéphane Hallegatte play with a model of re-insurance and find that there is a trade-off. The lack of competition leads to sub-optimal re-insurance provision, obviously. But is also allows the few players to take on larger risks, some of which may not have been insured otherwise. And, the larger the re-insurers, the more resilient the market can be. As a regulator, this means that means that you may to let the re-insurance companies grow larger than want is optimal in terms of competition.
Sabine Lemoyne de Forges, Ruben Bibas and Stéphane Hallegatte play with a model of re-insurance and find that there is a trade-off. The lack of competition leads to sub-optimal re-insurance provision, obviously. But is also allows the few players to take on larger risks, some of which may not have been insured otherwise. And, the larger the re-insurers, the more resilient the market can be. As a regulator, this means that means that you may to let the re-insurance companies grow larger than want is optimal in terms of competition.
About a (partial) return to the gold standard
In difficult times, it is easy to blame central banks for everything. Part of their role, after all, is to play the scape goat for policies the politician do not dare implementing. But then, there is only so much the central banks can do, as Europe and the United States no "nicely" show now. A substantial ingredient in the blame game is a call for a return to the gold standard, a nostalgia for supposedly better and easier times.
Olivier Ledoit and Sébastien Lotz echo this call and study what our current understanding is about the coexistence of fiat and commodity money. In principle, we can start from the idea that currency competition is good: this would force the central bank to be more careful with its fiat money. Indeed, we have learned from money search theory that bad money does not necessarily chase good money (the old Gresham's Law). Also, if the commodity has a positive return, its monetization is beneficial as long as its storage and transaction cost is sufficiently low. The question is then on how to find a commodity that has a real return from just sitting there. There is a larger problem, though, with small denominations. How do you mint coins measured in cents when the commodity is, for example, gold? Either the coins need to be very small or they have very small commodity content, to the point that they become ... fiat money. Monetary policy also becomes tricky, as quite obviously temporary easing becomes difficult if it risks driving fiat money out.
But in the end, isn't a commodity like gold only valuable because people believe it is valuable? Gold, to take an extreme and popular case, has little intrinsic value, as I argued before, and is thus just another fiat currency. It is all a question of perception.
Olivier Ledoit and Sébastien Lotz echo this call and study what our current understanding is about the coexistence of fiat and commodity money. In principle, we can start from the idea that currency competition is good: this would force the central bank to be more careful with its fiat money. Indeed, we have learned from money search theory that bad money does not necessarily chase good money (the old Gresham's Law). Also, if the commodity has a positive return, its monetization is beneficial as long as its storage and transaction cost is sufficiently low. The question is then on how to find a commodity that has a real return from just sitting there. There is a larger problem, though, with small denominations. How do you mint coins measured in cents when the commodity is, for example, gold? Either the coins need to be very small or they have very small commodity content, to the point that they become ... fiat money. Monetary policy also becomes tricky, as quite obviously temporary easing becomes difficult if it risks driving fiat money out.
But in the end, isn't a commodity like gold only valuable because people believe it is valuable? Gold, to take an extreme and popular case, has little intrinsic value, as I argued before, and is thus just another fiat currency. It is all a question of perception.
The iPhone must have an exclusive carrier
Aren't you angry that the particular mobile phone you prefer has an exclusive contract with a carrier? This limitation of carrier choice seems anti-competitive, if not frustrating. US anti-trust authorities seem to be getting interested in these arrangements and may intervene. It turns out that maybe they should not.
Robert Hahn and Hal Singer say exclusivity contracts are in fact the best thing that could happen for consumer welfare. Indeed, they spur competition through innovation, and the fact that the smart phone industry is innovative is hardly an understatement. Indeed, the exclusive contracts allow manufacturers to share the risk with the carrier, they make sure that both want the success of the new phone, and thus insure better reception and coverage. All this taken together induces manufacturers to take more risk and go for even faster and bolder innovations, which ultimately benefits the consumer.
Robert Hahn and Hal Singer say exclusivity contracts are in fact the best thing that could happen for consumer welfare. Indeed, they spur competition through innovation, and the fact that the smart phone industry is innovative is hardly an understatement. Indeed, the exclusive contracts allow manufacturers to share the risk with the carrier, they make sure that both want the success of the new phone, and thus insure better reception and coverage. All this taken together induces manufacturers to take more risk and go for even faster and bolder innovations, which ultimately benefits the consumer.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)