Browsing by Author "Kim, Jaesoo"

Now showing 1 - 6 of 6
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Bundling and Joint Marketing by Rival Firms
    (Wiley, 2017) Jeitschko, Thomas D.; Jung, Yeonjei; Kim, Jaesoo; Economics, School of Liberal Arts
    We study joint marketing by firms who price discriminate between consumers who patronize only one firm (single purchasers) and those who purchase from both (bundle purchasers). Firms either set the price of the bundle and then compete along side the bundle; or they determine a rebate that is applied to joint purchasers and then set prices. Even though the pricing structure in the joint marketing scheme is determined noncooperatively, the commitment to the joint marketing agreement allows firms to leverage their stand-alone prices—leading to higher profits and lower consumer surplus in either case, compared to both uniform pricing and independent price discrimination without a joint marketing agreement. Nevertheless the two schemes differ dramatically, in that rebates increase joint purchasing, whereas bundle pricing diminishes bundle purchases.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Group Contests with Internal Conflict and Power Asymmetry
    (Wiley, 2016-10) Choi, Jay Pil; Chowdhury, Subhasish M.; Kim, Jaesoo; Department of Economics, School of Liberal Arts
    We investigate simultaneous inter- and intra-group conflict in the shadow of within-group power asymmetry and complementarity in members' group-conflict efforts. A more symmetric group faces a higher degree of internal conflict, and might expend more effort in external conflict when the group-conflict effort technology is highly complementary. Depending on the degree of complementarity, the stronger player's relative contribution to external conflict might be higher in a more asymmetric group and, as a result, it is possible for the weaker player to earn a higher payoff. In the absence of any complementarity, the rent-dissipation is non-monotonic with the within-group power asymmetry.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Managerial Beliefs and Incentive Policies
    (Elsevier, 2015-11) Kim, Jaesoo; Department of Economics, School of Liberal Arts
    This article examines incentive contracts under moral hazard when a principal and agents disagree about the likelihood that a task will succeed. The direction of disagreement alters the effectiveness of monetary incentives. The principal's optimal contract is a relative performance evaluation when she is more optimistic than the agents, and a joint performance evaluation when she is less optimistic. We further show why disagreement may prevail in organizations by considering a simple job assignment problem.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Optimal equilibrium contracts in the infinite horizon with no commitment across periods
    (Springer, 2023-04) Chakrabarti, Subir K.; Kim, Jaesoo; Economics, School of Liberal Arts
    The paper studies equilibrium contracts under adverse selection when there is repeated interaction between a principal and an agent over an infinite horizon, without commitment across periods. We show the second-best contract is offered in a perfect Bayesian equilibrium of the infinite horizon model. Unlike the equilibrium contracts in the finite-horizon, the equilibrium contracts in the infinite horizon are not subject to either the ratchet effect or take-the-money-and-run strategy, but rely on a carrot and stick strategy. We study two important applications, one of which is about the optimal regulation of a publicly-held firm. This application has a mixture of both moral hazard and adverse selection. The other application is to the problem of optimal nonlinear pricing when the valuation of the buyers are drawn from a continuum.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Price Discrimination with Demarketing
    (Wiley, 2016-12) Kim, Jaesoo; Shin, Dongsoo; Economics, School of Liberal Arts
    We study how demarketing interacts with pricing decisions to explain why and when it can be employed as the seller's optimal strategy. In our model, a monopolistic seller offers different price-quality bundles of the product. A consumer's preference is private information. With demarketing, consumers must make a costly effort to purchase and/or utilize the product, whereas with marketing, the seller instead makes the effort so that the consumer's purchasing decision is independent of the cost of effort. Our result suggests that, for small or large effort costs, it is optimal for the seller to engage in marketing. For intermediate effort costs, however, demarketing can be optimal. With demarketing, the seller induces only the consumers with high valuation to make transaction effort. By doing so, the seller can price discriminate more effectively, thus extracting more surplus. We extend our analysis to the case where the seller can offer special deals through exclusive sales channels along with demarketing. Then, demarketing can be optimal even for large costs of effort.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Vertical Relationships with Hidden Interactions
    (MDPI, 2023-10) Kim, Jaesoo; Shin, Dongsoo; Economics, School of Liberal Arts
    In an agency model with adverse selection, we study how hidden interactions between agents affect the optimal contract. The principal employs two agents who learn their task environments through their involvement. The principal cannot observe the task environments. It is important to note that hidden interactions, such as acts of sabotage or help between the agents, have the potential to alter each other’s task environments. Our analysis encompasses two distinct organizational structures: competition and cooperation. Without hidden interactions, the competitive structure is optimal because the cooperative structure only provides the agents with more flexibility to collusively misrepresent their task environments. With hidden interactions, however, the cooperative structure induces the agents to help each other to improve the task environments while removing sabotaging incentives at no cost once collusion is deterred. As a result, the cooperative structure can be optimal in such a case. We discuss the link between production technology and organizational structure, finding that complementarity in production favors cooperative structures.