Imperfect legal unbundling of monopolistic bottlenecks

We study an industry with a monopolistic bottleneck (e.g. a transmission network) supplying an essential input to several downstream firms. Under legal unbundling the bottleneck must be operated by a legally independent upstream firm, which may be partly or fully owned by an incumbent active in downstream markets. Access prices are regulated but the upstream firm can perform non-tariff discrimination. Under perfect legal unbundling the upstream firm maximizes only own profits; with imperfections it considers to some extend also the profits of its downstream mother. We find that reducing imperfections in legal unbundling (keeping ownership fixed) generally increases total output. Increasing the incumbent's ownership share increases total output if imperfections are sufficiently small, otherwise the effects are ambiguous. Surprisingly, higher ownership shares of the downstream incumbent may sometimes lead to lower degrees of imperfections. Our analysis suggests that consumers may benefit most from legal unbundling with strong regulation and parts of ownership given to a minority outside shareholder.

[1]  E. Lazear Pay Equality and Industrial Politics , 1989, Journal of Political Economy.

[2]  M. Perry Vertical integration: Determinants and effects , 1989 .

[3]  John W. Mayo,et al.  The Measurement of Vertical Economies and the Efficient Structure of the Electric Utility Industry , 1991 .

[4]  J. Zechner,et al.  Influence Costs and Capital Structure , 1993 .

[5]  Rewarding performance by promotion to a different job , 1994 .

[6]  John Vickers,et al.  Competition and Regulation in Vertically Related Markets , 1995 .

[7]  Nicholas Economides,et al.  The Incentive for Non-Price Discrimination by an Input Monopolist , 1998 .

[8]  Dennis L. Weisman,et al.  Raising rivals' costs: The entry of an upstream monopolist into downstream markets , 1998 .

[9]  John Roberts,et al.  The Boundaries of the Firm Revisited , 1998 .

[10]  David M. Mandy Killing the Goose That May Have Laid the Golden Egg: Only the Data Know Whether Sabotage Pays , 2000 .

[11]  Kai A. Konrad,et al.  Sabotage in Rent-Seeking Contests , 2000 .

[12]  Roman Inderst,et al.  Influence costs and hierarchy , 2000 .

[13]  John E. Kwoka,et al.  Vertical economies in electric power: evidence on integration and its alternatives , 2002 .

[14]  Roman Inderst,et al.  Distributional Conflict in Organizations , 2002 .

[15]  John W. Mayo,et al.  Regulation, Vertical Integration and Sabotage , 2003 .

[16]  Bidding in hierarchies [Das Bieten in Hierarchien] , 2003 .

[17]  Cost Savings from Generation and Distribution with an Application to Italian Electric Utilities , 2004 .

[18]  Kai A. Konrad,et al.  Bidding in Hierarchies , 2003 .

[19]  James Reitzes Downstream price-cap regulation and upstream market power , 2005 .

[20]  J. Crémer,et al.  Legal vs Ownership Unbundling in Network Industries , 2006 .

[21]  David E. M. Sappington,et al.  Incentives for sabotage in vertically related industries , 2007 .

[22]  Felix Höffler,et al.  Legal Unbundling Can Be a Golden Mean between Vertical Integration and Separation , 2007 .

[23]  Sebastian Kranz,et al.  Legal unbundling can be a golden mean between vertical integration and ownership separation , 2011 .