Discussion Paper

No. 2017-19 | April 28, 2017
Experience goods and provision of quality

Abstract

Delacroix and Shi (Pricing and signaling with frictions, Journal of Economics Theory 2013) study a model featuring buyers with unit demands and sellers with unit supplies. The sellers may produce a high- or a low-quality good. The buyers get a signal about quality but the signalling technology is quite specific; the signal is either completely revealing or uninformative. The author studies the same model with a symmetric signalling technology where high and low signals are always got with positive probability. As a consequence, whenever high-quality goods are produced also low-quality goods are produced. Instead of price posting the author studies trading by auctions. There are two equilibria, and the author quantifies the efficiency loss due to asymmetric information.

JEL Classification:

D8, D82, D44

Assessment

  • Downloads: 153

Links

Cite As

Klaus Kultti (2017). Experience goods and provision of quality. Economics Discussion Papers, No 2017-19, Kiel Institute for the World Economy. http://www.economics-ejournal.org/economics/discussionpapers/2017-19


Comments and Questions


Anonymous - Referee report 1
June 02, 2017 - 12:51

This paper appears to make little scientific progress beyond the existing literature.

Specific comments.

1. The fundamental flaw of the paper is that the author did not describe the model precisely. A typical reader would understand the model in which a monopolistic seller with private information sells ...[more]

... a product to a mass of buyers who demand 1 unit of goods. This is not the model the author has in mind. The goal of the author is to improve upon Delacroix and Shi [2013] by modifying the signaling technology and the trading protocol. The model of Delacroix and Shi [2013] is much more elaborate than a simple signaling model, and requires to specify the matching and the search technologies, along the rationing rule. Unless the author completely specifies the important details of the model such as the matching and the search technolgies, the ensuing analysis would be meaningless.

2. I am sympathetic with the author that the trading protocol of Delacroix and Shi [2013] is somewhat artificial, but am not convinced of the benefit of considering more elaborate trading protocol. In fact, the auction mechanism was used by Satterthewaite and Shneyrov, to understand the asymptotic properties of the decentralized private value trading models. Satterthewaite et al. used the auction mechanism to address a specific problem arising from incomplete information. On the hand, I am not sure whether the auction mechanism offers anything new beyond what Delacroix and Shi [2013] used. Being more realistic does not mean a better modeling strategy. We have to balance the simplicity and the plausibility. By its nature, a model cannot be completely realistic. The question is what we can learn from the model, and how to choose each component of the model to deliver the main message in the most effective manner. In that sense, I believe the choice of Delacroix and Shi [2013] is justified.

3. Assumption 1 is more a condition for Proposition 1, and needs a plausible justification. What is the economic implication of Assumption 1?

4. The analysis of the paper appears to be routine, and mechanical, offering little new insight beyond Delacrois and Shi [2013].


Anonymous - Referee report 2
June 20, 2017 - 10:47

see attached file