DOCSLIB.ORG

Regulation, Market Structure and Performance in Telecommunications

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Regulation, Market Structure and Performance in Telecommunications OECD Economic Studies No. 32, 2001/I REGULATION, MARKET STRUCTURE AND PERFORMANCE IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS By Olivier Boylaud and Giuseppe Nicoletti TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 100 Regulation and market structure in telecommunications: a cross-country perspective ... 102 Past trends in regulatory reform............................................................................................ 103 Summarising regulatory reform for empirical analysis ....................................................... 111 Evaluating the effects of regulatory reform on performance in telecommunications........ 117 The empirical approach taken here...................................................................................... 119 The performance data ............................................................................................................122 Empirical results...................................................................................................................... 124 Conclusions.................................................................................................................................. 133 Annex. Panel Data Estimation Techniques ......................................................................... 139 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................ 141 The authors wish to thank Dimitri Ypsilanti, Sam Paltridge and Wonki Min for providing comments and data that made this work possible. Comments by Michael P. Feiner, Jørgen Elmeskov, Sally Van Siclen, Deborah Roseveare, Jens Høj and Isabelle Joumard greatly improved the quality of the paper. Martine Levasseur and Mary Thomson provided able statistical assistance. The opinions expressed in the paper are those of the authors and do not engage the OECD or its Member countries. 99 © OECD 2001 INTRODUCTION Over the past two decades, the institutional and regulatory framework of the telecommunications industry has changed radically. In most OECD countries, public telecommunications operators (PTOs) have been fully or partially priva- tised and regulations concerning access to telecommunications markets, provision of services to users and pricing mechanisms have been overhauled. Institutional and regulatory reform was generally spurred by the rapid evolution of both tele- communications technology and the structure of demand for telecommunications services, which has eliminated virtually all natural monopoly conditions, making it possible and efficient for a multiplicity of operators to supply these services to businesses and consumers. In turn, the new market and regulatory environment is having a substantial impact on the structure and organisation of the industry. Technical progress and regulatory changes are generally presumed to have brought about improvements in the amount, the range, the quality and the prices of telecommunications services in the OECD. The size of the communications industry is relatively small, but it has been increasing over the past two decades. In the mid-1980s, the industry represented around 2.5 per cent of GDP, 1.5 per cent of consumer expenditure, between 1.5 and 2.5 per cent of total inputs in industry and services and 3 per cent of goods and services trade in the OECD area. Despite significant reductions in its relative price, in the mid-1990s the share in consumption and trade had remained broadly constant while the share in GDP had risen to around 3 per cent and (partly as a statistical phenomenon due to increasing contracting out by firms) the share in total inputs grew by around 1 percentage point in most OECD countries. Therefore, as a result of changes in technology, industry organisation and the structure and level of prices, the volume of communication services grew rapidly. While there is a broad consensus that regulatory reform in telecommunications is beneficial for businesses and consumers, cross-country empirical evidence is still lacking and a number of policy-relevant issues remain unresolved. A first set of issues concerns the general linkages between ownership, regulation, market struc- ture and performance: is competition conducive to productivity improvements and price reductions in the whole range of telecommunication services? Is it potential competition or actual changes in market structure that bring about the beneficial 100 effects of liberalisation? Does privatisation generally lead to gains in efficiency and © OECD 2001 Regulation, Market Structure and Performance in Telecommunications consumer welfare? A second set of issues (which takes the benefits of competition for granted) concerns regulatory design: what is the regulatory framework which is liable to lead more quickly and more effectively to the development of competi- tion? Is facilities-based competition (in which new entrants are encouraged to build their own infrastructure) superior to service-based competition (coupled with the unbundling of access by third parties to basic network elements and services)? What is the best regulatory framework for interconnection rights and access pricing? How can equal access by consumers to multiple telecommunications operators be ensured? What is the desirable degree of vertical and horizontal integration in the telecommunications industry? This paper deals only with the first set of issues. Its main focus is on the economic effects of changes in regulation that increase the role of market mecha- nisms in the telecommunications industry by eliminating barriers to entry or redefining the role of public enterprises. To this end, the paper empirically investi- gates the linkages between regulatory regimes, market environments and perfor- mance in three services supplied by the telecommunications industry: domestic long distance, international long distance and mobile telecommunications. Based on the comparative experience of a large set of OECD countries over the 1990s, it provides empirical evidence that liberalisation of entry and the development of effective competition in telecommunications services generally lead to higher productivity, lower prices and better quality. To a large extent, the analysis in the paper is of historical interest: its main policy relevance lies in finding (as yet lacking) cross-country empirical support for the entry liberalisation policies that have been adopted by the vast majority of OECD countries during the past two decades. The paper does not address the finer issues related to regulatory design that arise after basic entry liberalisation has been implemented, for which available cross-country information is too recent and sparse to allow in-depth empirical analysis. Country-specific evidence on the economic benefits of market and regulatory changes in the telecommunications industry abounds, but few studies have attempted to look at these effects from a comparative, OECD-wide perspective.1 Focus on single countries was partly related to the lack of internationally compara- ble data on regulatory and market structures. The comparative approach of this paper was made possible by the construction, in the context of OECD-wide work on regulatory reform, of a data set including cross-country benchmark indicators of sectoral regulation, market structure and performance for 23 OECD countries over the 1991-97 period.2 These data were used to investigate the linkages between regulation, market structure and performance by means of cross-country/time- series estimation techniques. The rest of the paper is divided into two parts. The next section describes the evolution of the regulatory and market environment in the telecommunica- tions industry using the data collected and the indicators constructed for the 101 © OECD 2001 OECD Economic Studies No. 32, 2001/I analysis of the effects of regulation and market structure on performance. The final section presents the analytical framework, examines the data used to proxy for the various dimensions of performance (considering also their limita- tions), and discusses the results of the panel estimates for the individual services and overall. Throughout the paper, the description of cross-country pat- terns and trends in the various dimensions of performance is kept to a minimum – extensive discussion of patterns and trends in the telecommunica- tions industry can be found in the OECD Communications Outlook 1999, which is the main source for the performance data. REGULATION AND MARKET STRUCTURE IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS: A CROSS-COUNTRY PERSPECTIVE The telecommunications industry provides many services to businesses and consumers, using a growing variety of technologies and spanning an increasing range of communications media (voice, image, data, etc.). Ideally, the effects of competition on performance ought to be studied at the level of the single markets in which these services are supplied and demanded. However, due to data constraints, a trade-off exists between the chosen level of disaggregation and the possibility to perform cross-country comparisons. Furthermore, some services (such as local fixed voice telephony) are still largely monopolistic in a vast major- ity of countries, while others (such as so-called value added services) have gener- ally been competitive throughout the nineties. Analysis of these services would not yield insights on the relationship between competition and
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Market Structure of Higher Learning
    The Park Place Economist Volume 4 Issue 1 Article 16 5-1996 The Market Structure of Higher Learning Brett Roush '97 Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/parkplace Recommended Citation Roush '97, Brett (1996) "The Market Structure of Higher Learning," The Park Place Economist: Vol. 4 Available at: https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/parkplace/vol4/iss1/16 This Article is protected by copyright and/or related rights. It has been brought to you by Digital Commons @ IWU with permission from the rights-holder(s). You are free to use this material in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself. This material has been accepted for inclusion by faculty at Illinois Wesleyan University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ©Copyright is owned by the author of this document. The Market Structure of Higher Learning Abstract A student embarking on a college search is astounded at the number of higher learning institutions available -- an initial response may be to consider their market structure as one of perfect competition. Upon fkrther consideration, though, one sees this is inaccurate. In fact, the market structure of higher learning incorporates elements of monopolistic competition, oligopoly, and monopoly. An institution may not explicitly be a profit maximizer. However, treating it as such allows predictions of actions to be made by applying the above three market structures.
    [Show full text]
  • The Socialization of Investment, from Keynes to Minsky and Beyond
    Working Paper No. 822 The Socialization of Investment, from Keynes to Minsky and Beyond by Riccardo Bellofiore* University of Bergamo December 2014 * [email protected] This paper was prepared for the project “Financing Innovation: An Application of a Keynes-Schumpeter- Minsky Synthesis,” funded in part by the Institute for New Economic Thinking, INET grant no. IN012-00036, administered through the Levy Economics Institute of Bard College. Co-principal investigators: Mariana Mazzucato (Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex) and L. Randall Wray (Levy Institute). The author thanks INET and the Levy Institute for support of this research. The Levy Economics Institute Working Paper Collection presents research in progress by Levy Institute scholars and conference participants. The purpose of the series is to disseminate ideas to and elicit comments from academics and professionals. Levy Economics Institute of Bard College, founded in 1986, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, independently funded research organization devoted to public service. Through scholarship and economic research it generates viable, effective public policy responses to important economic problems that profoundly affect the quality of life in the United States and abroad. Levy Economics Institute P.O. Box 5000 Annandale-on-Hudson, NY 12504-5000 http://www.levyinstitute.org Copyright © Levy Economics Institute 2014 All rights reserved ISSN 1547-366X Abstract An understanding of, and an intervention into, the present capitalist reality requires that we put together the insights of Karl Marx on labor, as well as those of Hyman Minsky on finance. The best way to do this is within a longer-term perspective, looking at the different stages through which capitalism evolves.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Failure Guide
    Market failure guide A guide to categorising market failures for government policy development and evaluation industry.nsw.gov.au Published by NSW Department of Industry PUB17/509 Market failure guide—A guide to categorising market failures for government policy development and evaluation An external academic review of this guide was undertaken by prominent economists in November 2016 This guide is consistent with ‘NSW Treasury (2017) NSW Government Guide to Cost-Benefit Analysis, TPP 17-03, Policy and Guidelines Paper’ First published December 2017 More information Program Evaluation Unit [email protected] www.industry.nsw.gov.au © State of New South Wales through Department of Industry, 2017. This publication is copyright. You may download, display, print and reproduce this material provided that the wording is reproduced exactly, the source is acknowledged, and the copyright, update address and disclaimer notice are retained. To copy, adapt, publish, distribute or commercialise any of this publication you will need to seek permission from the Department of Industry. Disclaimer: The information contained in this publication is based on knowledge and understanding at the time of writing July 2017. However, because of advances in knowledge, users are reminded of the need to ensure that the information upon which they rely is up to date and to check the currency of the information with the appropriate officer of the Department of Industry or the user’s independent advisor. Market failure guide Contents Executive summary
    [Show full text]
  • Investment Characteristics of Natural Monopoly Companies
    Investment Characteristics of Natural Monopoly Companies Škapa Stanislav Abstract This paper explores the possibilities of investment by private investors in natural monopoly companies. The paper analyzes the broad issue of risk measurement with focus on downside risk measurement principle. The main scientific aim is to adopt a more sophisticated and theo- retically advanced statistical technique and apply them to the findings. The preferred method used for the estimation of selected characteristics and ratios was the robust statistical methods and a bootstrap method. Key words: natural monopoly, investor, investment, downside risk 1. INTRODUCTION Natural monopoly companies lead to a variety of economic performance problems: excessive prices, production inefficiencies, costly duplication of facilities, poor service quality and they have potentially undesirable distributional impacts. In the eyes of consumers, it is the high prices and poor service quality that they most probably perceive. However, the question that arises is: what brings the investment into the natural monopoly company to investors? 2. THEORETICAL SOLUTIONS 2.1 Natural monopoly Economists have been analyzing natural monopolies for more than 150 year. Sharkey (1982) provides an overview of the intellectual history of economic analysis of natural monopolies and he concludes that John Stuart Mill was the first to speak of natural monopolies in 1848. One of the main questions is how a natural monopoly should be defined. There are some characteristics which should help to understand what a natural monopoly mean. According Thomas Farrer (1902, referenced by Sharkey, 1982) a natural monopoly is associated with supply and demand of characteristics that include: the product or supplied service must be essential the products must be non-storable the supplier must have a favourable production location.
    [Show full text]
  • Regulation Policies Concerning Natural Monopolies in Developing and Transition Economies
    ST/ESA/1999/DP.8 DESA Discussion Paper No. 8 Regulation policies concerning natural monopolies in developing and transition economies S. Ran Kim and A. Horn March 1999 United Nations DESA Discussion Paper Series DESA Discussion Papers are preliminary documents circulated in a limited number of copies and posted on the DESA web site http://www.un.org/esa/papers.htm to stimulate discussion and critical comment. This paper has not been formally edited and the designations and terminology used do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Secretariat. Citations should refer to a “Discussion Paper of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs.” S. Ran Kim and A. Horn Ms. S. Ran Kim is associate expert and Mr. A. Horn is Deputy Director of the Division for Public Economics and Public Administration, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, New York. We are very much indebted to valuable comments and suggestions from Mr. Tony Bennett. Comments should be addressed to the authors, c/o Division for Public Economics and Public Administration, Rm. DC1-900, United Nations, New York, N.Y. 10017, or by e-mail to [email protected]. Additional copies of the paper are available from the same address. Authorized for distribution by: Guido Bertucci Director Division for Public Economics and Public Administration Room DC1-928 United Nations New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 963-5859/Fax: (212) 963-9681 Email: [email protected] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Abstract Network industries are often organized as vertically integrated public monopolies.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Exchange During Hyperinflation
    Economic Exchange during Hyperinflation Alessandra Casella Universityof California, Berkeley Jonathan S. Feinstein Stanford University Historical evidence indicates that hyperinflations can disrupt indi- viduals' normal trading patterns and impede the orderly functioning of markets. To explore these issues, we construct a theoretical model of hyperinflation that focuses on individuals and their process of economic exchange. In our model buyers must carry cash while shopping, and some transactions take place in a decentralized setting in which buyer and seller negotiate over the terms of trade of an indivisible good. Since buyers face the constant threat of incoming younger (hence richer) customers, their bargaining position is weak- ened by inflation, allowing sellers to extract a higher real price. How- ever, we show that higher inflation also reduces buyers' search, increasing sellers' wait for customers. As a result, the volume of transactions concluded in the decentralized sector falls. At high enough rates of inflation, all agents suffer a welfare loss. I. Introduction Since. Cagan (1956), economic analyses of hyperinflations have fo- cused attention on aggregate time-series data, especially exploding price levels and money stocks, lost output, and depreciating exchange rates. Work on the German hyperinflation of the twenties provides a We thank Olivier Blanchard, Peter Diamond, Rudi Dornbusch, Stanley Fischer, Bob Gibbons, the referee, and the editor of this Journal for helpful comments. Alessandra Casella thanks the Sloan Foundation
    [Show full text]
  • Market-Structure.Pdf
    This chapter covers the types of market such as perfect competition, monopoly, oligopoly and monopolistic competition, in which business firms operate. Basically, when we hear the word market, we think of a place where goods are being bought and sold. In economics, market is a place where buyers and sellers are exchanging goods and services with the following considerations such as: • Types of goods and services being traded • The number and size of buyers and sellers in the market • The degree to which information can flow freely Perfect or Pure Market Imperfect Market Perfect Market is a market situation which consists of a very large number of buyers and sellers offering a homogeneous product. Under such condition, no firm can affect the market price. Price is determined through the market demand and supply of the particular product, since no single buyer or seller has any control over the price. Perfect Competition is built on two critical assumptions: . The behavior of an individual firm . The nature of the industry in which it operates The firm is assumed to be a price taker The industry is characterized by freedom of entry and exit Industry • Normal demand and supply curves • More supply at higher price Firm • Price takers • Have to accept the industry price Perfect Competition cannot be found in the real world. For such to exist, the following conditions must be observed and required: A large number of sellers Selling a homogenous product No artificial restrictions placed upon price or quantity Easy entry and exit All buyers and sellers have perfect knowledge of market conditions and of any changes that occur in the market Firms are “price takers” There are very many small firms All producers of a good sell the same product There are no barriers to enter the market All consumers and producers have ‘perfect information’ Firms sell all they produce, but they cannot set a price.
    [Show full text]
  • The Theory of the Firm and the Theory of the International Economic Organization: Toward Comparative Institutional Analysis Joel P
    Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business Volume 17 Issue 1 Winter Winter 1997 The Theory of the Firm and the Theory of the International Economic Organization: Toward Comparative Institutional Analysis Joel P. Trachtman Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb Part of the International Trade Commons Recommended Citation Joel P. Trachtman, The Theory of the Firm and the Theory of the International Economic Organization: Toward Comparative Institutional Analysis, 17 Nw. J. Int'l L. & Bus. 470 (1996-1997) This Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business by an authorized administrator of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. The Theory of the Firm and the Theory of the International Economic Organization: Toward Comparative Institutional Analysis Joel P. Trachtman* Without a theory they had nothing to pass on except a mass of descriptive material waiting for a theory, or a fire. 1 While the kind of close comparative institutional analysis which Coase called for in The Nature of the Firm was once completely outside the universe of mainstream econo- mists, and remains still a foreign, if potentially productive enterrise for many, close com- parative analysis of institutions is home turf for law professors. Hierarchical arrangements are being examined by economic theorists studying the or- ganization of firms, but for less cosmic purposes than would be served3 by political and economic organization of the production of international public goods. I. INTRODUCrION: THE PROBLEM Debates regarding the competences and governance of interna- tional economic organizations such as the World Trade Organization * Associate Professor of International Law, The Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University.
    [Show full text]
  • Principles of Microeconomics
    PRINCIPLES OF MICROECONOMICS A. Competition The basic motivation to produce in a market economy is the expectation of income, which will generate profits. • The returns to the efforts of a business - the difference between its total revenues and its total costs - are profits. Thus, questions of revenues and costs are key in an analysis of the profit motive. • Other motivations include nonprofit incentives such as social status, the need to feel important, the desire for recognition, and the retaining of one's job. Economists' calculations of profits are different from those used by businesses in their accounting systems. Economic profit = total revenue - total economic cost • Total economic cost includes the value of all inputs used in production. • Normal profit is an economic cost since it occurs when economic profit is zero. It represents the opportunity cost of labor and capital contributed to the production process by the producer. • Accounting profits are computed only on the basis of explicit costs, including labor and capital. Since they do not take "normal profits" into consideration, they overstate true profits. Economic profits reward entrepreneurship. They are a payment to discovering new and better methods of production, taking above-average risks, and producing something that society desires. The ability of each firm to generate profits is limited by the structure of the industry in which the firm is engaged. The firms in a competitive market are price takers. • None has any market power - the ability to control the market price of the product it sells. • A firm's individual supply curve is a very small - and inconsequential - part of market supply.
    [Show full text]
  • 0530 New Institutional Economics
    0530 NEW INSTITUTIONAL ECONOMICS Peter G. Klein Department of Economics, University of Georgia © Copyright 1999 Peter G. Klein Abstract This chapter surveys the new institutional economics, a rapidly growing literature combining economics, law, organization theory, political science, sociology and anthropology to understand social, political and commercial institutions. This literature tries to explain what institutions are, how they arise, what purposes they serve, how they change and how they may be reformed. Following convention, I distinguish between the institutional environment (the background constraints, or ‘rules of the game’, that guide individuals’ behavior) and institutional arrangements (specific guidelines designed by trading partners to facilitate particular exchanges). In both cases, the discussion here focuses on applications, evidence and policy implications. JEL classification: D23, D72, L22, L42, O17 Keywords: Institutions, Firms, Transaction Costs, Specific Assets, Governance Structures 1. Introduction The new institutional economics (NIE) is an interdisciplinary enterprise combining economics, law, organization theory, political science, sociology and anthropology to understand the institutions of social, political and commercial life. It borrows liberally from various social-science disciplines, but its primary language is economics. Its goal is to explain what institutions are, how they arise, what purposes they serve, how they change and how - if at all - they should be reformed. This essay surveys the wide-ranging and rapidly growing literature on the economics of institutions, with an emphasis on applications and evidence. The survey is divided into eight sections: the institutional environment; institutional arrangements and the theory of the firm; moral hazard and agency; transaction cost economics; capabilities and the core competence of the firm; evidence on contracts, organizations and institutions; public policy implications and influence; and a brief summary.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Structures
    Market Structures Lesson Goal: In this lesson, you will learn the characteristics of the 4 types of market ​ structures: perfect competition, monopoly, monopolistic competition, and oligopoly. You ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ will also learn how the government intervenes in the market to protect competition. Directions: Read the notes below CLOSELY for understanding, and follow the prompts ​ given to you throughout the lesson. For example, if I ask you to pause and watch a video and take notes, pause and watch the video. Open a Google Doc and take notes as you work. WHEN the whole lesson is finished, share your completed Google Doc with me. NOTES #1 Perfect Competition The simplest market structure is known as perfect competition. It is also called pure ​ ​ competition. A perfectly competitive market is one with a large number of firms all producing essentially the same product. Pure competition assumes that the market is in equilibrium and that all firms sell the same product for the same price. However, each firm produces so little of the product compared to the total supply that no single firm can hope to influence prices. The only decision such producers can make is how much to produce, given their production costs and the market price. Four Conditions for Perfect Competition While very few industries meet all of the conditions for perfect competition, some come close. For example, markets for many farm products and the stocks traded on the New York Stock Exchange meet the conditions for perfect competition. The 4 conditions are: 1. Many buyers and sellers participate in the market. 2. Sellers offer identical products.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding and Maximizing America's Evolutionary Economy
    UNDERSTANDING AND MAXIMIZING AMERICA’S EVOLUTIONARY ECONOMY ITIF The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation DR. ROBERT D. ATKINSON i UNDERSTANDING AND MAXIMIZING AMERICA’S EVOLUTIONARY ECONOMY DR. ROBERT D. ATKINSON OCTOBER 2014 DR. ROBERT D. ATKINSON ITIF The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation In the conventional view, the U.S. economy is a static entity, changing principally only in size (growing in normal times and contracting during recessions). But in reality, our economy is a constantly evolving complex ecosystem. The U.S. economy of 2014 is different, not just larger, than the economy of 2013. Understanding that we are dealing with an evolutionary rather than static economy has significant implications for the conceptu- alization of both economics and economic policy. Unfortunately, the two major economic doctrines that guide U.S. policymakers’ thinking—neoclassical economics and neo-Keynesian economics—are rooted in overly simplistic models of how the economy works and therefore generate flawed policy solutions. Because these doctrines emphasize the “economy as machine” model, policymakers have developed a mechanical view of policy; if they pull a lever (e.g., implement a regulation, program, or tax policy), they will get an expected result. In actuality, economies are complex evolutionary systems, which means en- abling and ensuring robust rates of evolution requires much more than the standard menu of favored options blessed by the prevailing doctrines: limiting government (for conservatives), protecting worker and “consumer” welfare (for liberals), and smoothing business cycles (for both). As economies evolve, so too do doctrines Any new economic and governing systems. After WWII when the framework for America’s United States was shifting from what Michael “fourth republic” needs Lind calls the second republic (the post-Civil War governance system) to the third republic to be grounded in an (the post-New-Deal, Great Society governance evolutionary understanding.
    [Show full text]