How to Auction a Bottleneck Monopoly when Underhand Vertical Agreements are Possible
Author
dc.contributor.author
Engel Goetz, Eduardo
Author
dc.contributor.author
Fischer Barkan, Ronald
Author
dc.contributor.author
Galetovic Potsch, Alexander
Admission date
dc.date.accessioned
2018-08-07T20:31:08Z
Available date
dc.date.available
2018-08-07T20:31:08Z
Publication date
dc.date.issued
2004
Cita de ítem
dc.identifier.citation
Journal of Industrial Economics Vol. 52, No. 3, pp. 427 - 455, Septiembre, 2004
es_ES
Identifier
dc.identifier.issn
0022-1821
Identifier
dc.identifier.other
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-1821.2004.00233.x
Identifier
dc.identifier.uri
https://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/150724
Abstract
dc.description.abstract
A seaport is awarded in a Demsetz auction to the operator bidding the
lowest cargo-handling fee. The competitive auction is irrelevant if the
port operator integrates into shipping and sabotages competitors, thus
providing a motive for a ban on vertical integration. The paper shows
that such a ban increases welfare even when underhand agreements with
shippers are possible. For this result to attain, the auction must be
combined with a sufficiently high floor on the cargo-handling fee that
operators can bid in the auction. With no floor, a Demsetz auction is
worse than an unregulated bottleneck monopoly.