skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Explore Research Products in the PAR
It may take a few hours for recently added research products to appear in PAR search results.


Title: Price Discrimination with Fairness Constraints
Price discrimination strategies, which offer different prices to customers based on differences in their valuations, have become common practice. Although it allows sellers to increase their profits, it also raises several concerns in terms of fairness (e.g., by charging higher prices (or denying access) to protected minorities in case they have higher (or lower) valuations than the general population). This topic has received extensive attention from media, industry, and regulatory agencies. In this paper, we consider the problem of setting prices for different groups under fairness constraints. We first propose four definitions: fairness in price, demand, consumer surplus, and no-purchase valuation. We prove that satisfying more than one of these fairness constraints is impossible even under simple settings. We then analyze the pricing strategy of a profit-maximizing seller and the impact of imposing fairness on the seller’s profit, consumer surplus, and social welfare. Under a linear demand model, we find that imposing a small amount of price fairness increases social welfare, whereas too much price fairness may result in a lower welfare relative to imposing no fairness. On the other hand, imposing fairness in demand or consumer surplus always decreases social welfare. Finally, no-purchase valuation fairness always increases social welfare. We observe similar patterns under several extensions and for other common demand models numerically. Our results and insights provide a first step in understanding the impact of imposing fairness in the context of discriminatory pricing. This paper was accepted by Jayashankar Swaminathan, operations management. Funding: A. N. Elmachtoub was supported by the Division of Civil, Mechanical and Manufacturing Innovation [Grants 1763000 and 1944428]. Supplemental Material: The data files and online appendix are available at https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4317 .  more » « less
Award ID(s):
1944428 1763000
PAR ID:
10446739
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ;
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Management Science
Volume:
68
Issue:
12
ISSN:
0025-1909
Page Range / eLocation ID:
8536 to 8552
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. ; (, The Research Conference on Communications, Information, and Internet Policy (TPRC))
    null (Ed.)
    Internet users have suffered collateral damage in tussles over paid peering between large ISPs and large content providers. The issue will arise again when the FCC considers a new net neutrality order. In this paper, we model the effect of paid peering fees on broadband prices and consumer surplus. We first consider the effect of paid peering on broadband prices. ISPs assert that paid peering revenue is offset by lower broadband prices, and that ISP profits remain unchanged. Content providers assert that paid peering fees do not result in lower broadband prices, but simply increase ISP profits. We adopt a two-sided market model in which an ISP maximizes profit by setting broadband prices and a paid peering price. To separately evaluate the effect on consumers who utilize video streaming and on consumers who don’t, we model two broadband plans: a basic plan for consumers whose utility principally derives from email and web browsing, and a premium plan for consumers with significant incremental utility from video streaming. Our result shows that the claims of the ISPs and of the content providers are both incorrect. Paid peering fees reduce the premium plan price; however, the ISP passes on to its customers only a portion of the revenue from paid peering. We find that ISP profit increases but video streaming profit decreases as an ISP moves from settlement-free peering to paid peering price. We next consider the effect of paid peering on consumer surplus. ISPs assert that paid peering increases consumer surplus because it eliminates an inherent subsidy of consumers with high video streaming use by consumers without. Content providers assert that paid peering decreases consumer surplus because paid peering fees are passed onto consumers through higher video streaming prices and because there is no corresponding reduction in broadband prices. We simulate a regulated market in which a regulatory agency determines the maximum paid peering fee (if any) to maximize consumer surplus, an ISP sets its broadband prices to maximize profit, and a content provider sets its video streaming price. Simulation parameters are chosen to reflect typical broadband prices, video streaming prices, ISP rate of return, and content provider rate of return. We find that consumer surplus is a uni-modal function of the paid peering fee. The paid peering fee that maximizes consumer surplus depends on elasticities of demand for broadband and for video streaming. However, consumer surplus is maximized when paid peering fees are significantly lower than those that maximize ISP profit. However, it does not follow that settlement-free peering is always the policy that maximizes consumer surplus. The direct peering price depends critically on the incremental ISP cost per video streaming subscriber; at different costs, it can be negative, zero, or positive. 
    more » « less
  2. ; (, Telecommunications policy)
    Internet users have suffered collateral damage in tussles over paid peering between large ISPs and large content providers. Paid peering is a relationship where two networks exchange traffic with payment, which provides direct access to each other’s customers without having to pay a third party to carry that traffic for them. The issue will arise again when the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) considers a new net neutrality order. We first consider the effect of paid peering on broadband prices. We adopt a two-sided market model in which an ISP maximizes profit by setting broadband prices and a paid peering price. We analytically derive the profit-maximizing prices, and show that they satisfy a generalization of the well-known Lerner rule. Our result shows that paid peering fees reduce the premium plan price, increase the video streaming price and the total price for premium tier customers who subscribe to video streaming services; however, the ISP passes on to its customers only a portion of the revenue from paid peering. ISP profit increases but video streaming profit decreases as an ISP moves from settlement-free peering to paid peering price. We next consider the effect of paid peering on consumer surplus. We find that consumer surplus is a uni-modal function of the paid peering fee. The paid peering fee that maximizes consumer surplus depends on elasticities of demand for broadband and for video streaming. However, consumer surplus is maximized when paid peering fees are significantly lower than those that maximize ISP profit. However, it does not follow that settlement-free peering is always the policy that maximizes consumer surplus. The peering price depends critically on the incremental ISP cost per video streaming subscriber; at different costs, it can be negative, zero, or positive. 
    more » « less
  3. ; (, The Quarterly Journal of Economics)
    Abstract We provide a continuous-time “risk-centric” representation of the New Keynesian model, which we use to analyze the interactions between asset prices, financial speculation, and macroeconomic outcomes when output is determined by aggregate demand. In principle, interest rate policy is highly effective in dealing with shocks to asset valuations. However, in practice monetary policy faces a wide range of constraints. If these constraints are severe, a decline in risky asset valuations generates a demand recession. This reduces earnings and generates a negative feedback loop between asset prices and aggregate demand. In the recession phase, average beliefs matter because they not only affect asset valuations but also determine the strength of the amplification mechanism. In the ex ante boom phase, belief disagreements (or heterogeneous asset valuations) matter because they induce investors to speculate. This speculation exacerbates the crash by reducing high-valuation investors’ wealth when the economy transitions to recession, which depresses (wealth-weighted) average beliefs. Macroprudential policy that restricts speculation in the boom can Pareto improve welfare by increasing asset prices and aggregate demand in the recession. 
    more » « less
  4. ; ; (, IEEE Transactions on Power Systems)
    null (Ed.)
    Pricing multi-interval economic dispatch of electric power under operational uncertainty is considered in this two-part paper. Part I investigates dispatch-following incentives for generators under the locational marginal pricing (LMP) and temporal locational marginal pricing (TLMP) policies. Extending the theoretical results developed in Part I, Part II evaluates a broader set of performance measures under a general network model. For networks with power flow constraints, TLMP is shown to have an energy-congestion-ramping price decomposition. Under the one-shot dispatch and pricing model, this decomposition leads to a nonnegative merchandising surplus equal to the sum of congestion and ramping surpluses. It is also shown that, comparing with LMP, TLMP imposes a penalty on generators with limited ramping capabilities, thus giving incentives for generators to reveal their ramping limits truthfully and improve their ramping capacities. Several benchmark pricing mechanisms are evaluated under the rolling-window dispatch and pricing models. The performance measures considered are the level of out-of-the-market uplifts, the revenue adequacy of the system operator, consumer payment, generator profit, level of discriminative payment, and price volatility. 
    more » « less
  5. ; (, Management Science)
    null (Ed.)
    We study the power of selling opaque products, that is, products where a feature (such as color) is hidden from the customer until after purchase. Opaque products, which are sold with a price discount, have emerged as a powerful vehicle to increase revenue for many online retailers and service providers that offer horizontally differentiated items. In the opaque selling models we consider, all of the items are sold at a single common price alongside opaque products that may correspond to various subsets of the items. We consider two types of customers, risk-neutral ones, who assume they will receive a truly random item of the opaque product, and pessimistic ones, who assume they will receive their least favorite item of the opaque product. We benchmark opaque selling against two common selling strategies: discriminatory pricing, where one explicitly charges different prices for each item, and single pricing, where a single price is charged for all the items. We give a sharp characterization of when opaque selling outperforms discriminatory pricing; namely, this result holds for situations where all customers are pessimistic or the item valuations are supported on two points. In the latter case, we also show that opaque selling with just one opaque product guarantees at least 71.9% of the revenue from discriminatory pricing. We then provide upper bounds on the potential revenue increase from opaque selling strategies over single pricing and describe cases where the increase can be significantly more than that of discriminatory pricing. Finally, we provide pricing algorithms and conduct an extensive numerical study to assess the power of opaque selling for a variety valuation distributions and model extensions. This paper was accepted by Gabriel Weintraub, revenue management and market analytics. 
    more » « less
  • Citation Formats
  • MLA
  • APA
  • Chicago
  • BibTeX
  • Save / Share this Record
  • Send to Email