Name File Type Size Last Modified
Readme.pdf application/pdf 56.1 KB 10/12/2019 08:22:AM
dwelfarenew.m text/plain 3.9 KB 10/12/2019 08:22:AM
lik.m text/plain 3.6 KB 10/12/2019 08:22:AM
mainfulluni_all.m text/plain 3.6 KB 10/12/2019 08:22:AM
profit.m text/plain 278 bytes 10/12/2019 08:22:AM
sharenewF.m text/plain 3 KB 10/12/2019 08:22:AM
welfare.m text/plain 5 KB 10/12/2019 08:22:AM

Project Description

Summary:  View help for Summary This paper studies a market where soda is sold in both refillable and nonrefillable bottles. Purchasing refillables is inconvenient but cheaper. Using a discrete choice model, I find that price-sensitive customers put less weight on the inconveniences of purchasing refillables. This implies that a retailer can target lower prices to price-sensitive customers using the refillable segment. I evaluate the overall welfare consequences of this market segmentation and find that both customer welfare and profits would decrease (by 12.61 and 4.21 percent, respectively) if the refillables were removed, as there would be an important market-shrinkage effect. (JEL D22, L13, L25, L81)

Scope of Project

Subject Terms:  View help for Subject Terms Industrial Organization
JEL Classification:  View help for JEL Classification
      D22 Firm Behavior: Empirical Analysis
      L13 Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
      L25 Firm Performance: Size, Diversification, and Scope
      L81 Retail and Wholesale Trade; e-Commerce
Universe:  View help for Universe The prices of carbonated beverages in a developing country between the years 2010 and 2011, measured at the product--store--week level. Household-level purchases of carbonated soda in a developing country between the years 2010 and 2011, measured at the household--store--day level.
Data Type(s):  View help for Data Type(s) observational data


Related Publications

Published Versions

Export Metadata

Report a Problem

Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.

This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.