Abstract Quality regulation seeks to ensure quality and foster competition by reducing vertical differentiation, but it may also have adverse effects on market structure. We study this trade-off in the context of pharmaceutical bioequivalence, which is the primary quality standard for generic drugs. By exploiting the introduction of bioequivalence in Chile, we find that stronger regulation reduced the number of drugs in the market by 18% and increased average paid prices by 13%. We estimate a model of drug entry, certification, and demand to study how drug quality, aversion to generics, and certification costs shape the equilibrium effects of quality regulation. We find that quality regulation increased demand for generic drugs by resolving asymmetric information and reducing aversion to unbranded generics, which induced the entry of high-quality drugs in place of low-quality drugs. Consumer welfare increased despite higher prices and a lower number of firms. We compare minimum quality standards with alternative designs of quality regulation, including quality disclosure.
Abstract To study competition, innovation, and industry dynamics that arise as a result of their interaction, we develop a new oligopolistic general-equilibrium Schumpeterian growth model. This model ties together the endogenous growth, oligopolistic competition, and dynamic industrial organization literatures in a single unified framework. Within each industry, there are an endogenously determined number of large firms (“superstars”) that compete á la Cournot and a continuum of small firms which collectively constitute a competitive fringe. Firms dynamically choose their innovation strategies, cognizant of other firms' choices, and their entry and exit are endogenous. The model is consistent with the macroeconomic trends observed in the United States since the 1970s, such as the domination of industries by a small number of superstar firms, the rise of markups, market concentration, profits, and R&D spending, and the decline in business dynamism, productivity growth, and the labor share. It replicates the empirical relationship between innovation and competition within and across industries. As an application, we estimate the model to disentangle the effects of separate mechanisms on the structural transition observed in the United States, which yields striking results: (1) While the increase in the average markup causes a significant static welfare loss, this loss is overshadowed by the dynamic welfare gains from increased innovation in response to higher profit opportunities. (2) The increasing costs of innovation are found to be the primary determinant of lackluster productivity growth, i.e., ideas are getting harder to find.
Abstract We study how firms set wages for their employees when they can legally age-discriminate across workers. We exploit an age-specific minimum wage change in the UK, which raised the minimum applying to workers aged 25 and over, leaving unchanged the minima for younger workers. Using matched employer-employee data on a low-paying sector, we show large, positive wage spillovers on workers aged under 25, which arise within firms from company wage policy. Pay equity norms offer the most parsimonious explanation for the emergence of spillovers. The effects that we document also operate in other low-paying sectors of the UK labor market.
Abstract We study how supply disruptions interact with monopoly pricing, inventory management, and consumer stockpiling in a continuous-time model. Pre-emption incentives—consumers prefer to stock up before a price hike while the firm prefers to hike before consumers stock up—lead to an equilibrium with gradual stockpiling and endogenous uncertainty over the timing of a price hike, which can trigger a run at the disruption onset. Consumer storage introduces welfare losses from randomized pricing, but can also strengthen the firm’s incentive to hold buffer stock. Rationing, price controls, and reserve mandates can each improve welfare, but only strategic government reserves can implement the social optimum.
Abstract A principal (such as a centrist political party) can partially influence the allocation of power between two competing parties. The principal is closer to one party, the “Friend”, than to the other, the “Enemy”. The principal’s optimal contract initially seeks to exclude the Enemy. However, once the Enemy gains power, the principal embraces him in exchange for policy moderation. Moderation also disciplines the Friend, inducing him to move closer to the principal’s preferred policy. Principals close to the Friend fully embrace the Enemy; more centrist principals divide their support. Commitment benefits the principal only if she is close to the Friend and parties value power little.
