Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-m8qmq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T05:47:30.039Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Relative quality-related (dis)utility in a vertically differentiated oligopoly with an environmental externality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 August 2014

Nada Ben Elhadj  and
Ornella Tarola
Nada Ben Elhadj
Affiliation:
ISG, University of Tunis, Tunisia. E-mail: nadabelhadj@yahoo.com
Ornella Tarola
Affiliation:
DISSE, University of Rome La Sapienza, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00100 Rome, Italy. Tel: +39(0)6-49910253. E-mail: ornella.tarola@uniroma1.it
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a vertically differentiated setting, we consider a two-stage game between a clean firm and a dirty producer with quality competition at the first stage and price competition at the second stage under the assumption that consumers have relative preferences for quality. The equilibrium configuration changes depending on the consumers' dispersion and the relative preferences: either both producers are active at equilibrium, or the green producer is the only firm active in the market, the brown competitor being out. We analyze how the equilibrium changes when preferences are country specific (developed vs. developing countries). Finally, we show that whatever the market configuration at equilibrium, there can be a pollution damage reduction compared to the standard case without relative preferences. To the best of our knowledge, we are the first to introduce in the literature of green consumerism the notion of (possibly country-specific) relative preferences.

Type
Research Article
Information
Environment and Development Economics , Volume 20 , Issue 3 , June 2015 , pp. 354 - 379
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acharyya, R. (1998), ‘Monopoly and product quality separating or pooling menu?’, Economics Letters 61: 187–194.Google Scholar
Akerlof, G. (1997), ‘Social distance and social decisions’, Econometrica 65: 1005–1027.Google Scholar
Alexopoulos, M. and Sapp, S. (2006), ‘Exploring the behavior of economic agents: the role of relative preferences’, Economics Bulletin 12(2): 1–7.Google Scholar
Alcott, H. (2009), ‘Social norms and energy conservation’, MIT Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Working Paper No. 2009–014, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
Andrè, F.J., Gonzalez, P., and Porteiro, N. (2009), ‘Strategic quality competition and the Porter hypothesis’, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 57: 182–194.Google Scholar
Andreoni, J. (1990), ‘Impure altruism and donations to public goods: a theory of warm-glow giving’, Economic Journal 100: 464–477.Google Scholar
Arrow, K.J. (1971), ‘Political and economic valuation of social effects and externalities’, in Intriligator, M. (ed.), Frontier of Quantitative Economics, Amsterdam: North Holland.Google Scholar
Autio, M., Heiskannen, E., and Heinonen, V. (2009), ‘Narratives of “green” consumers – the anti hero, environmental hero and the anarchist’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 8: 40–53.Google Scholar
Benassi, C., Chirco, A., and Colombo, C. (2006), ‘Vertical differentiation and the distribution of income’, Bulletin of Economic Research 58(4): 345–367.Google Scholar
Bhate, S. (2001), ‘One world, one environment and one vision: are we close to achieving this?’, Journal of Consumer Behaviour 2(2): 169–184.Google Scholar
Bonnisseau, J.M. and Lahmandi-Ayed, R. (2007), ‘Vertical differentiation with non-uniform consumers’ distribution', International Journal of Economic Theory 3: 179–190.Google Scholar
Buttel, F.H. (1992), ‘Environmentalisation: origins, processes, and implications for rural social change’, Rural Sociology 57: 1–27.Google Scholar
Carlsson, F., García, J.H., and Löfgren, A. (2010), ‘Conformity and the demand for environmental goods’, Environmental and Resource Economics 47(3): 407–421.Google Scholar
Choi, J-C. and Shin, H.-S. (1992), ‘A comment on a model of vertical product differentiation’, Journal of Industrial Economics 40(2): 229–231.Google Scholar
Cleveland, M., Kalamas, M., and Laroche, M. (2005), ‘Shades of green: linking environmental locus of control and pro-environmental behaviors, Journal of Consumer Marketing 22(4): 198–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conrad, K. (2005), ‘Price competition and product differentiation when consumers care for the environment’, Environmental & Resource Economics 31: 1–19.Google Scholar
Eriksson, C. (2004), ‘Can green consumerism replace environmental regulation? A differentiated products example’, Resource & Energy Economics 26: 281–293.Google Scholar
EC (2011), Attitudes of European Citizens Towards the Environment, Special Eurobarometer 365, Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Frey, B.S. and Stutzer, A. (2006), Environmental Morale and Motivation, Zurich: Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gabszewicz, J.J. and Thisse, J.F. (1979), ‘Price competition, quality and income disparities’, Journal of Economic Theory 20: 340–359.Google Scholar
Gabszewicz, J.J. and Wauthy, X.Y. (2002), ‘Quality underprovision by a monopolist when quality is not costly’, Economics Letters 77: 65–72.Google Scholar
García-Gallego, A. and Georgantzís, N. (2009), ‘Market effects of changes in consumers' social responsibility’, Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 18(1): 235–262.Google Scholar
Ghazzai, H. (2008), ‘Multi-product strategies and relative preferences for quality’, Economics Bulletin 4(34): 1–10.Google Scholar
Goswami, P. (2008), ‘Is the urban Indian consumer ready for clothing with eco-labels?’, International Journal of Consumer Studies 32: 438–446.Google Scholar
Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J., and Van den Bergh, B. (2010), ‘Going green to be seen: status, reputation, and conspicuous conservation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 98(3): 392–404.Google Scholar
Heffner, R., Kurani, K.S., and Turrentine, T.S. (2007), ‘Symbolism in California's early market for hybrid electric vehicles’, Transportation Research Part D 12: 396–413.Google Scholar
Hopkins, N.S. and Mehanna, S.R. (2000), ‘Social action against everyday pollution in Egypt’, Human Organization 59(2): 245–254.Google Scholar
Inglehart, R. (1990), Cultural Shift in Advanced Industrial Society, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunze, I. (2008), ‘The social construction of bottled water consumption in New Zealand’, Master of Social Sciences Thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton.Google Scholar
Lombardini-Riipinen, C. (2005), ‘Optimal tax policy under environmental quality competition’, Environmental & Resource Economics 32(3): 317–336.Google Scholar
Maynard, M. (2007), ‘Say “hybrid” and many people will hear “Prius”’, The New York Times, 4 July, [Available at] http://www.nytimes.com.Google Scholar
Moraga-Gonzalez, J.L. and Padro-Fumero, N. (2002), ‘Environmental policy in a green market’, Environmental & Resource Economics 22: 419–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maslow, A.H. (1954), Motivation and Personality, New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Mussa, M. and Rosen, S. (1978), ‘Monopoly and product quality’, Journal of Economic Theory 18: 301–317.Google Scholar
Nyborg, K., Howarth, R.B., and Brekke, K.A. (2006), ‘Green consumers and public policy: on socially contingent moral motivation’, Resource and Energy Economics 28(4): 351–366.Google Scholar
Rege, M. (2004), ‘Social norms and private provision of public goods’, Journal of Public Economic Theory 6(1), 65–77.Google Scholar
Riechmann, T. (2006), ‘Mixed motives in a Cournot game’, Economics Bulletin 4(29): 1–8.Google Scholar
Rodriguez-Ibeas, R. (2007), ‘Environmental product differentiation and environmental awareness’, Environmental & Resource Economics 36: 237–254.Google Scholar
Salazar, H.A., Oerlemans, L., and van Stroe-Biezen, S. (2013), ‘Social influence on sustainable consumption: evidence from a behavioural experiment’, International Journal of Consumer Studies 37(2): 172–180.Google Scholar
Sanna-Randaccio, F. and Sestini, R. (2012), ‘The impact of unilateral climate policy with endogenous plant location and market size asymmetry’, Review of International Economics 20(3): 580–599.Google Scholar
Shaked, A. and Sutton, J. (1983), ‘Natural oligopolies’, Econometrica 51: 1469–1484.Google Scholar
Tantawi, P., O'Shaughnessy, N., and Gad, K. (2006), ‘Exploring environmental consciousness among the Egyptian consumers’, Paper presented at Academy of World Business, Marketing and Management Development Conference, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Welsch, H. and Kuhling, J. (2009), ‘Determinants of pro-environmental consumption: the role of reference groups and routine behavior’, Ecological Economics 69: 166–176.Google Scholar