Show simple item record

dc.creatorCremer, Helmuth 
dc.creatorMaldonado, Dario 
dc.date.accessioned2015-09-17T20:25:34Z
dc.date.available2015-09-17T20:25:34Z
dc.date.created2013-03
dc.date.issued2013
dc.identifier.citationCremer, H., & Maldonado Carrizosa, D. (2013). Mixed oligopoly in education. Bogotá: Universidad del Rosario, Facultad de Economía.
dc.identifier.urihttp://repository.urosario.edu.co/handle/10336/10817
dc.description.abstractThis paper studies oligopolistic competition in education markets when schools can be private and public and when the quality of education depends on ìpeer groupî e§ects. In the Örst stage of our game schools set their quality and in the second stage they Öx their tuition fees. We examine how the (subgame perfect Nash) equilibrium allocation (qualities, tuition fees and welfare) is a§ected by the presence of public schools and by their relative position in the quality range. When there are no peer group e§ects, e¢ ciency is achieved when (at least) all but one school are public. In particular in the two school case, the impact of a public school is spectacular as we go from a setting of extreme di§erentiation to an e¢ cient allocation. However, in the three school case, a single public school will lower welfare compared to the private equilibrium. We then introduce a peer group e§ect which, for any given school is determined by its student with the highest ability. These PGE do have a signiÖcant impact on the results. The mixed equilibrium is now never e¢ cient. However, welfare continues to be improved if all but one school are public. Overall, the presence of PGE reduces the e§ectiveness of public schools as regulatory tool in an otherwise private education sector.
dc.format.extent27 páginas
dc.format.mediumRecurso electrónico
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isospa
dc.relation.ispartofSerie Documentos de trabajo ; No. 134
dc.relation.urihttps://ideas.repec.org/p/col/000092/010500.html
dc.sourceinstname:Universidad del Rosario
dc.sourcereponame:Repositorio Institucional EdocUR
dc.sourceinstname:Universidad del Rosario
dc.subject.ddcEducación de adultos 
dc.subject.lembEducación::Aspectos Económicos
dc.subject.lembEconomía
dc.titleMixed oligopoly in education
dc.typeworkingPaper
dc.publisherUniversidad del Rosario
dc.publisher.departmentFacultad de Economía
dc.identifier.editorialUniversidad del Rosario, Facultad de Economía
dc.subject.keywordEducation
dc.subject.keywordPeer-group efects
dc.subject.keywordMixed duopoly
dc.rights.accesRightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.type.spaDocumento de trabajo
dc.rights.accesoAbierto (Texto completo)
dc.type.hasVersioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/acceptedVersion
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBÈnabou, Roland (1996). Equity and eÖciency in human capital investment: The local connection, The Review of Economic Studies, 63(2), 237-264.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationBoadway, Robin, Nicolas Marceau and Maurice Marchand (1996). Issues in decentralizing the provision of education, International Tax and Public Finance, 3(3), 311-327.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCremer, Helmuth and Jacques-FranÁois Thisse (1991). Location models of horizontal di§erentiation: A special case of vertical di§erentiation models, Journal of Industrial Economics, 39(4), 383ñ390.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDe Fraja, Gianni and Paola Valbonesi (2012). The design of the university system, Journal of Public Economics, 96(3ñ4), pp. 317-330.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationEpple, Dennis and Richard E. Romano (1998). Competition between private and public schools, vouchers, and peer-group e§ects, The American Economic Review, 88(1), 33ñ62.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationFoster, Gigi (2006). Itís not your peers, and itís not your friends: some progress toward understanding the educational peer e§ect mechanism, Journal of Public Economics, 90(8ñ9), 1455ñ1475.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationCellini S. and C. Glodin (2012). Does federal student aid raise tuition? New evidence on for-proÖt colleges. NBER, working Paper 17827.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationDeming D., C. Goldin, L. F. Katz (2012). The for-proÖt postsecondary school sector: nimble critters or agile predators?. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 26(1), pp. 139-164
dc.source.bibliographicCitationHoxby, Caroline (2000). Peer e§ects in the classroom: learning from gender and race variation, NBER Working Paper 7867.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMayer, Susan E. and Christopher Jencks (1989). Growing up in poor neighborhoods: how much does it matter?, Science, 243(4897), 1441ñ1445
dc.source.bibliographicCitationMcEwan, P. J., (2001). The e§ectiveness of public, catholic and non-religious private schools in Chileís voucher system. Education Economics, 9, 2, 103-128.
dc.source.bibliographicCitationZimmerman, David J. (2003). Peer e§ects in academic outcomes: evidence from a natural experiment, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85(1), 9ñ23.
dc.format.tipoDocumento
dc.rights.ccAtribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 2.5 Colombia
dc.relation.citationIssueNo. 134
dc.relation.citationTitleSerie Documentos de trabajo. Economía


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record