Environmental and Resource Economics

, Volume 68, Issue 2, pp 377–396 | Cite as

Credence Goods, Misleading Labels, and Quality Differentiation

Article

Abstract

Due to differences in information disclosure mechanisms, consumer misinformation about the quality of many credence goods is more endemic at intermediate levels of the quality spectrum rather than at the extremes. Using an oligopoly model of vertical product differentiation, we examine how consumers’ overestimation of the quality of intermediate-quality products affects firms’ incentives to improve product quality. The firms non-cooperatively choose the quality of their product before choosing its price or quantity. Irrespective of the nature of second stage competition, Bertrand or Cournot, we find that quality overestimation by consumers increases profit of the intermediate-quality firm, and motivates it to raise its product’s quality. In response, the high-quality firm improves its product quality even further but ends up with lower profit. Overall, average quality of the vertically differentiated product improves, which raises consumer surplus. Social welfare increases when the firms compete in prices but falls when they compete in quantities.

Keywords

Credence goods Misinformation Vertical product differentiation 

JEL Classification

Q56 L15 M37 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Arnab Basu, Amrita Ray Chaudhuri, Ngo Van Long, anonymous referees and a co-editor of this journal for useful comments and suggestions. Financial support for this research from Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of Winnipeg’s Board of Regents is gratefully acknowledged. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

  1. Abrams K, Meyers C, Irani T (2010) Naturally confused: consumers’ perceptions of all-natural and organic pork products. Agric Hum Values 27(3):365–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amacher G, Koskela E, Ollikainen M (2004) Environmental quality competition and eco-labeling. J Environ Econ Manag 47:284–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bagwell K (2007) The economic analysis of advertising. In: Armstrong M, Porter R (eds) Handbook of industrial organization, vol 3. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1701–1844Google Scholar
  4. Baksi S, Bose P (2007) Credence goods, efficient labelling policies, and regulatory enforcement. Environ Resour Econ 37:411–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baksi S, Bose P, Xiang D (2012) Credence goods, consumer misinformation, and quality. Department of Economics Working Paper 2012-01, University of Winnipeg. https://ideas.repec.org/p/win/winwop/2012-01.html
  6. Becker G, Murphy K (1993) A simple theory of advertising as a good or bad. Q J Econ 108(4):941–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bernard J, Hustvedt G, Carroll K (2013) What is a label worth? Defining the alternatives to organic for US wool producers. J Fash Mark Manag 17(3):266–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell B, Khachatryan H, Behe B, Dennis J, Hall C (2015) Consumer perceptions and misperceptions of ecofriendly and sustainable terms. Agric Resour Econ Rev 44(1):21–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crampes C, Hollander A (1995) Duopoly and quality standards. Eur Econ Rev 39:71–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Darby M, Karni E (1973) Free competition and the optimal amount of fraud. J Law Econ 16(1):67–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dixit A, Norman V (1978) Advertising and welfare. Bell J Econ 9(1):1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dulleck U, Kerschbamer R (2006) On doctors, mechanics, and computer specialists: the economics of credence goods. J Econ Lit 44(1):5–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gifford K, Bernard J (2011) The effect of information on consumers’ willingness to pay for natural and organic chicken. Int J Consum Stud 35:282–289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glaeser E, Ujhelyi G (2010) Regulating misinformation. J Public Econ 94:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goss J, Holcomb R, Ward C (2002) Factors influencing consumer concerns related to natural beef in the southern plains. J Food Distrib Res 33:73–84Google Scholar
  16. Hamilton S, Zilberman D (2006) Green markets, eco-certification, and equilibrium fraud. J Environ Econ Manag 52:627–644CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hattori K, Higashida K (2012) Misleading advertising in duopoly. Can J Econ 45(3):1154–1187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hattori K, Higashida K (2014) Misleading advertising and minimum quality standards. Inf Econ Policy 28:1–14Google Scholar
  19. Kreps D, Scheinkman J (1983) Quantity precommitment and Bertrand competition yield Cournot outcomes. Bell J Econ 14(2):326–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Martinez S (2010) Varied interests drive growing popularity of local foods. USDA Economic Research Service Report 8(4). http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/121427/2/01LocalFoods.pdf
  21. Mason C (2013) The economics of eco-labeling: theory and empirical implications. Int Rev Environ Resour Econ 6(4):341–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Motta M (1993) Endogenous quality choice: price vs. quantity competition. J Ind Econ 41:113–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Oberholtzer L, Greene C, Lopez E (2006) Organic poultry and eggs capture high price premiums and growing share of specialty markets. Report No. LDP-M-150-01, USDA Economic Research Service. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/LDP/2006/12Dec/LDPM15001/ldpm15001.pdf
  24. Pezzino M (2010) Minimum quality standards with more than two firms under Cournot competition. IUP J Manag Econ 8(3):26–40Google Scholar
  25. Ronnen U (1991) Minimum quality standards, fixed costs, and competition. RAND J Econ 22(4):490–504CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Scarpa C (1998) Minimum quality standards with more than two firms. Int J Ind Organ 16(5):665–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schmidt R (2009) Welfare in differentiated oligopolies with more than two firms. Int J Ind Organ 27:501–507CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shaked A, Sutton J (1982) Relaxing price competition through product differentiation. Rev Econ Stud 49:3–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sutton J (1997) Game-theoretic models of market structure. In: Kreps D, Wallis K (eds) Advances in economics and econometrics: theory and applications, vol I. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 66–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tietenberg T (1998) Disclosure strategies for pollution control. Environ Resour Econ 11(3–4):587–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Valletti T (2000) Minimum quality standards under Cournot competition. J Regul Econ 18:235–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of WinnipegWinnipegCanada
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of ManitobaWinnipegCanada
  3. 3.School of Public Finance and TaxationSouthwestern University of Finance and EconomicsChengduChina

Personalised recommendations