Price discrimination is widely considered unethical/unfair by consumers, as has been borne out by decades of psychological research and mainstream press reporting. However, little academic work has been done to investigate the ethics of price discrimination. The work that has been done to date concludes that while price discrimination is not unethical, despite widespread lay perceptions, it is at best morally neutral. We argue price discrimination is more ethical than unitary pricing, when done ‘progressively,’ meaning firms charge customers as a function of their willingness-to-pay. We introduce this specific kind of price discrimination as ‘Progressive Pricing’ and demonstrate it ethically outperforms a ‘Unitary Pricing’ scheme (where everyone pays the same price, regardless of their willingness-to-pay), at least within a broadly consequentialist framework. We do this by comparing a Unitary Pricing scheme to a Progressive one, analyzing them through the lenses of four different consequentialist ‘Social Welfare Functions’ (Utilitarian, Egalitarian, Prioritarian, and Leximin), which are used by welfare economists and philosophers to rank the distributions of different social outcomes, concluding that Progressive Pricing is preferred regardless of which Social Welfare Function(s) one finds most plausible.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Alice’s surplus is 0.1 utility gained—[log(25,000) − log(24,980)] = 0.0992; Bob’s is 0.05 utility gained—[log(2500) − log(2480)] = 0.0420.
Alice’s surplus is 0.1 utility gained − [log(25,000) − log(24,965)] = 0.0986; Bob’s is 0.05 utility gained − [log(2500) − log(2495)] = 0.0480.
Unitary Pricing: Utility before for Alice was log(25,000) = 10.1266. After her net utility increases from her subscription, this increases to 10.2258. This priority-weighted change is log(10.2258) − log(10.1266) is 0.00975. For Bob, utility before is log(2500) = 7.8240. After his net utility increases from his subscription, this increases to 7.8660, for a priority-weighted change of log(7.8660) − log(7.8240) = 0.0054.
Progressive Pricing: Utility before for Alice is the same, 10.1266, as is Bob’s 7.8240. With the $35 price, Alice’s utility after the subscription decreases slightly to 10.2252; with the $5 price, Bob’s utility after the subscription increases to 7.8720. The priority-weighted change for Alice is log(10.2252) − log(10.1266) = 0.00969; Bob’s is log(7.8720) − log(7.8240) = 0.0061.
Ayadi, N., Paraschiv, C., & Rousset, X. (2017). Online dynamic pricing and consumer-perceived ethicality: Synthesis and future research. Recherche et Applications en Marketing,32(3), 49–70.
Baumol, W. J., & Swanson, D. G. (2003). The new economy and ubiquitous competitive price discrimination: Identifying defensible criteria of market power. Antitrust Law Journal,70(3), 661–685.
Cohen, G. A. (1989). On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics,99, 906–944.
Dusetzina, S. B. (2016). Drug pricing trends for orally administered anticancer medications reimbursed by commercial health plans, 2000–2014. JAMA Oncology,2(7), 960–961.
Elegido, J. M. (2011). The ethics of price discrimination. Business Ethics Quarterly,21(4), 633–660.
Elegido, J. M. (2015). The just price as the price obtainable in an open market. Journal of Business Ethics,130(3), 557–572.
Huppertz, J. W., Arenson, S. J., & Evans, R. H. (1978). An application of equity theory to buyer-seller exchange situations. Journal of Marketing Research,15(2), 250–260.
Krugman, P. (2000). What price fairness? The New York Times (October 4).
Levine, M. E. (2002). Price discrimination without market power. Yale Journal on Regulation,19, 1–36.
Layard, R., Mayraz, G., & Nickell, S. (2008). The marginal utility of income. Journal of Public Economics,92(8–9), 1846–1857.
Locke, J. (1661/2004). Venditio. In Locke: Political Writings, David Wooton (ed.), pp. 442–446.
Martins, M. (1995). An experimental investigation of the effects of perceived price fairness on perceptions of sacrifice and value. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL.
Marcoux, A. M. (2006). Much ado about price discrimination. Journal of Markets and Morality,9(1), 57–69.
Moriarty, J. (2017). Business ethics. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/ethics-business/. Accessed 1 Sept 2019.
Ordonez, L. D., Connoly, T., & Coughlan, R. (2000). Multiple reference points in satisfaction and fairness assessment. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making,13(3), 329.
Oswald, A. J. (2005). On the common claim that happiness equations demonstrate diminishing marginal utility of income. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1781. Retrieved from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=826388. Accessed 1 Sept 2019.
Parfit, D. (1998). Equality and priority. In A. Mason (Ed.), Ideals of equality (pp. 1–20). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Phlips, L. (1983). The economics of price discrimination. London: Cambridge University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Schmalensee, R. (1981). Output and welfare implications of monopolistic third-degree price discrimination. American Economic Review,71, 242–247.
Sen, A. (1980). Equality of what? In S. McMurrin (Ed.), The tanner lectures on human values. London: Cambridge University Press.
Sachs, J. D. (2017). The efficiency-equity tradeoff. In B. Frey & D. Iselin (Eds.), Economic ideas you should forget. New York: Springer.
Shapiro, C., & Varian, H. R. (1999). Information rules: A strategic guide to the network economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Snyder, J. (2009a). What’s the matter with price gouging? Business Ethics Quarterly,19(2), 275–293.
Snyder, J. (2009b). Efficiency, equity, and price gouging: A response to Zwolinski. Business Ethics Quarterly,19(2), 303–306.
Steinberg, E. (2020). Big data and personalized pricing. Business Ethics Quarterly,30(1), 97–117.
Temkin, L. S. (2000). Equality, priority and the levelling down objection. In M. Clayton & A. Williams (Eds.), The ideal of equality. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Turow, J., Feldman, L., & Meltzer, K. (2005). Open to exploitation: America’s shoppers online and offline. A Report from the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania.
Varian, H. R. (1985). Price discrimination and social welfare. American Economic Review,75, 870–875.
Zuiderveen Borgesius, F., & Poort, J. (2017). Online price discrimination and EU data privacy law. Journal of Consumer Policy,40, 347.
Zwolinski, M. (2008). The ethics of price gouging. Business Ethics Quarterly,18(3), 347–378.
Zwolinski, M., & Wertheimer, A. (2017). Exploitation. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/exploitation/. Accessed 1 Sept 2019.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Coker, J., Izaret, J. Progressive Pricing: The Ethical Case for Price Personalization. J Bus Ethics (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04545-x
- Price discrimination
- Progressive Pricing
- Social welfare function
- Price personalization
- Dynamic pricing