Centralization versus Decentralization: An Application to Price Setting by a Multi-market Firm
- 1 April 2008
- journal article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in Journal of the European Economic Association
- Vol. 6 (2-3) , 457-467
- https://doi.org/10.1162/jeea.2008.6.2-3.457
Abstract
This paper compares centralized and decentralized price setting by a firm that sells a single product in two markets, but is constrained to set one price (e.g., due to arbitrage). Each market is characterized by a different linear demand function, and demand conditions are privately observed by a local manager. This manager only cares about profits in his own market and, as a result, communicates his information strategically. Our main results link organizational design to market demand. First, if pricing is decentralized, it is always delegated to the manager who faces the flattest inverse demand function, regardless of the size of market demand. Second, even when pricing can be allocated to an unbiased headquarters, decentralization is optimal when markets differ sufficiently in how flat the inverse demand functions are. Finally, decentralization is more likely when, in expectations, local managers disagree more about pricesKeywords
All Related Versions
This publication has 4 references indexed in Scilit:
- When Does Coordination Require Centralization?American Economic Review, 2008
- Authority and Communication in OrganizationsThe Review of Economic Studies, 2002
- The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral IntegrationJournal of Political Economy, 1986
- Strategic Information TransmissionEconometrica, 1982