Advertisement

Promoting Capital Improvements by Public Utilities: A Supergame Approach

  • David Salant
  • Glenn Woroch

Abstract

A public utility undertakes capital improvements only if it expects to earn revenues that cover necessary investments and provide a competitive return. Typically, outlays occur within a short span of time while the returns are spread over a much longer period. This applies to expenditures for cost-reducing investments, capacity expansion, or product enhancements. It is especially true of utilities that adopt new technologies such as the latest advances in telecommunications networks.

Keywords

Capital Stock Consumer Surplus Planning Solution Subgame Perfect Equilibrium Capacity Expansion 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Averch, H. and L. Johnson (1962): “Behavior of the firm under regulatory constraint,” American Economic Review, 52, 1052–69.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, E. (1974): “Innovation and regulation,” Journal of Public Economics, 3, 285–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baron, D. and R. Myerson (1982): “Regulating a monopolist with unknown cost,” Econometrica, 50, 911–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benhabib, J., and R. Radner (1988): “Joint exploitation of a productive asset: a game-theoretic approach,” New York University Research Report 88–17.Google Scholar
  5. Brock, W. and W.D. Dechert (1985): “Dynamic Ramsey pricing,” International Economic Review, 26, 569–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Friedman, J. (1990): “A modification of the Folk Theorem to apply to time-dependent supergames,” Oxford Economic Papers, 317–35.Google Scholar
  7. Gilbert, R. and D. Newbery (1989): “Dynamic efficiency of regulatory constitutions,” University of California-Berkeley.Google Scholar
  8. Goldberg, V. (1976): “Regulation and administered contracts,” Bell Journal of Economics, 7, 426–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kydland, F. and E. Prescott (1977): “Rules rather than discretion: the inconsistency of optimal plans,” Journal of Political Economy, 85, 473–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Klein, B., R. Crawford, and A. Alchian (1978): “Vertical integration, appropriable rents, and the competitive contracting process,” Journal of Law and Economics, 21, 279–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Laffont, J.-J. and J. Tirole (1986): “Using cost observations to regulate firms,” Journal of Political Economy, 94, 614–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Linhart, P., R. Radner and F. Sinden (1983): “A sequential Principal-Agent approach to regulation,” in Proceedings of the 10th Telecommunications Conference, ed. by H. Gandy, P. Espinosa and J. Ordover. Norwood, NJ: ABLEX Publishing Co..Google Scholar
  13. Luenberger, D. (1969): Optimization by Vector Space Methods. John Wiley: New York.Google Scholar
  14. Rader, T. (1970): “Resource allocation with increasing returns to scale,” American Economic Review, 55, no. 5, 814–25.Google Scholar
  15. Salant, D. and G. Woroch (1992): “Trigger price regulation,” Rand Journal of Economics, forthcoming.Google Scholar
  16. Vogelsang, I. (1988): “Price cap regulation of telecommunications services: a long-run approach,” Rand Note N-2704-MF.Google Scholar
  17. Williamson, O. (1975): Markets and Hierarchies. Free Press: New York.Google Scholar
  18. Woroch, G. (1987): “Credible price control,” GTE Laboratories Economics Discussion Paper.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin · Heidelberg 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Salant
    • 1
  • Glenn Woroch
    • 1
  1. 1.GTE Laboratories IncorporatedUSA

Personalised recommendations