To make high-quality research more accessible and easier to explore.

Fields:
43 results ✕ Clear filters

Regulation, Competition, and Liberalization

Journal of Economic Literature 2006 44(2), 325-366
In many countries throughout the world, regulators are struggling to determine whether and how to introduce competition into regulated industries. This essay examines the complexities involved in the liberalization process. While stressing the importance of case-specific analyses, this essay distinguishes liberalization policies that generally are procompetitive from corresponding anticompetitive liberalization policies

Regulating Infrastructure: The Impact on Risk and Investment

Journal of Economic Literature 2006 44(4), 925-972
The last thirty years have witnessed a fundamental change in the regulation of infrastructure industries. Whereas firms were subject to rate of return regulation and protected from entry in the past, they now face various forms of incentive regulation, competition is actively promoted by many regulators, and both regulators and the firms they regulate must often confront rapid technological progress. This paper surveys the literature on the investment implications of different regulatory schemes, highlighting the relevance of modern investment theory, which puts risk and intertemporal issues, such as the irreversibility of much infrastructure investment, center stage. It discusses the impact on regulated monopolists' investment behavior of key regulatory characteristics, namely the price flexibility allowed by the regulator, the length of the regulatory cycle, and the costs the regulator will allow the firm to recover at future regulatory hearings. It also considers the impact of competition, especially the situation where a vertically integrated firm has its operation of a bottleneck asset regulated, on investment by regulated firms and their competitors

Competition among regulators and credit market integration

Journal of Financial Economics 2006 79(2), 401-430 open access
We analyze the incentives for independent bank regulators with financially integrated jurisdictions to form a regulatory union. Externalities lead competing regulators to choose suboptimally low standards. Centralized regulation, however, entails a loss of flexibility if equal standards must be applied across jurisdictions. We find that, first, centralized regulation will more likely emerge among relatively homogeneous jurisdictions/countries. Second, centralized regulation will be unanimously preferred to independence only if it entails standards higher than those of the country with the highest individual standards. Third, financial integration among more than two jurisdictions may prevent partial unions, which, in turn, may prevent more comprehensive agreements

Entry regulation as a barrier to entrepreneurship

Journal of Financial Economics 2006 82(3), 591-629 open access
Using a comprehensive database of European firms, we study the effect of market entry regulations on the creation of new limited-liability firms, the average size of entrants, and the growth of incumbent firms. We find that costly regulations hamper the creation of new firms, especially in industries that should naturally have high entry. These regulations also force new entrants to be larger and cause incumbent firms in naturally high-entry industries to grow more slowly. Our results hold even when we correct for the availability of financing, the degree of protection of intellectual property, and labor regulations

Regulation under Asymmetric Information in Water Utilities

American Economic Review 2006 96(2), 62-66
Water utilities are reminiscent of network industries and are characterized by important fixed costs. These factors contribute to a single firm serving an area justifying public intervention on pricing. About one fourth of U.S. water utilities is private and subject to regulation. Regulators are unlikely to be perfectly informed and regulation is unlikely to be costlessly implemented. These inherent imperfections have lead economists to consider the incentive properties of regulatory procedures using the economics of information. See David Baron (1989). The empirical literature on regulation has focused on evaluating the effects of regulation on prices, firms ’ costs, efficiency and innovation in sectors such as airline, electricity and energy as surveyed by Paul Joskow and Nancy Rose (1989). Few of these empirical studies rely on the socalled theory of regulation. Regarding the water industry, there is an abundant literature on residential water demand, firms ’ cost and their efficiency given their public versus private nature. Relying on a model with asymmetric information and a sample of California water utilities, Frank Wolak (1994) assesses the consumer welfare loss due to asymmetric information and shows that the model with asymmetric information provides a superior description of the cost and demand data than the model under perfect

The Effects of Rate Regulation on Demand for Supplemental Health Insurance

American Economic Review 2006 96(2), 67-71
Many developed countries have a market for private health insurance that supplements publicly funded, universal coverage. Government regulation of the supplemental market, including the extent to which insurers are permitted to adjust premiums based on individual characteristics such as age, sex, and health status, varies across countries (OECD, 2004). Proponents of rate regulation argue that the resulting crosssubsidization from low to high risks is necessary to maintain the affordability of coverage for high risks. Economic theory, however, raises the concern that the inability to adjust premiums to reflect individual risk could create adverse selection by driving low risks from the market (Michael Rothschild and Joseph Stiglitz, 1976). Little empirical evidence exists to determine the optimal role of rate regulation in private, supplemental insurance markets. Existing studies of the consequences of rating restrictions focus on markets for primary health insurance and find that these laws have had surprisingly little effect on overall rates of coverage (Simon, 2004). In this paper, we study the effects of rate regulation in supplemental health insurance markets by examining the market for individually purchased coverage that supplements Medicare among the elderly in the United States. While the publicly financed Medicare program provides nearly universal coverage of a standard set of benefits for those 65 and over, beneficiaries are exposed to significant financial risk due to the cost sharing associated with covered services and a lack of coverage for some important services. The vast majority of Medicare beneficiaries obtain supplemental coverage through a complex system of publicly and privately funded sources. State Medicaid programs provide publicly financed supplemental coverage for low-income and disabled beneficiaries, and employers provide highly subsidized retiree supplemental health insurance for other beneficiaries, but the remainder rely on highly regulated, private insurance markets. Medicare’s Part C managed care plans are a voluntary, private replacement for traditional Medicare, while “Medigap” coverage is a private policy, bought by about 30 percent of Medicare beneficiaries, that provides only supplemental benefits (Franklin J. Eppig and George S. Chulis, 1997). Our study examines the effects of regulations limiting the information on individual characteristics insurers can use in setting premiums for Medigap coverage

Re-examining the effects of regulation fair disclosure using foreign listed firms to control for concurrent shocks

Journal of Accounting and Economics 2006 41(3), 271-292
We re-examine the effects of regulation fair disclosure (Reg FD) using ADRs (who are exempt from Reg FD) to control for confounding events which affected all traded firms. Tests based on public information metrics (returns volatility, informational efficiency and trading volume) and on analyst information metrics (forecast dispersion and accuracy) suggest that Reg FD did not uniquely affect the US information environment. However, analyst report informativeness declined for US firms relative to ADR firms, providing evidence consistent with Reg FD achieving one of its objectives–reducing private information flows to analysts

How Has Regulation FD Affected the Operations of Financial Analysts

Contemporary Accounting Research 2006 23(2), 491-525
In this paper, we analyze how financial analysts generate information, make decisions about firm coverage, and try to maintain their forecasting accuracy after the passage of Regulation Fair Disclosure (“Reg FD”). Using the model developed by Barron, Kim, Lim, and Stevens 1998, we find that analysts are investing more effort in idiosyncratic information discovery. In order to do this, individual analysts appear to be reducing coverage for well‐followed firms while increasing coverage of firms that were less followed prior to Reg FD. Analysts who had preferential links with firms that they covered, such as analysts from large brokerage houses, tend to have greater forecast accuracy in the pre‐FD period. However, these analysts are unable to sustain their forecasting superiority in the post‐FD period, which suggests that there has been a leveling of the information playing field among analysts. Overall, our results reflect a trend toward greater reliance on idiosyncratic information discovery on part of the financial analysts

Disclosure, investment and regulation

Journal of Financial Intermediation 2006 15(3), 285-306
This paper provides a framework to analyze voluntary and mandatory disclosure. Since improved disclosure reduces the entrepreneur's ability to extract private benefits, it secures funding for new investments, but also provides existing claimholders with a windfall gain. As a result, the entrepreneur may choose to forgo investment in favor of extracting more private benefits. A mandatory disclosure standard reduces inefficient extraction and increases investment efficiency. Although the optimal standard is higher than the entrepreneur's optimal choice, it can be less than complete in order not to deter investment. The model also shows that better legal shareholder protection goes together with higher disclosure standards and that harmonization of disclosure standards may be detrimental.