Monopoly with Incomplete Information.

Maskin, E., & Riley, J. (1984). Monopoly with Incomplete Information. RAND Journal of Economics, 171-196.

Type

Journal article

Intellectual base

Primary research

Year

1984

Pages

171-196

DOI

10.2307/2555674

DOI registrant

Wiley

Link

https://doi.org/10.2307/2555674

Cited from

economics_finance

Cited by

2 citations across 2 artifacts.

Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.

Primes

• Price Discrimination
  • The modern formal treatment of second-degree price discrimination comes from Michael Mussa and Sherwin Rosen's 1978 Journal of Economic Theory paper Monopoly and Product Quality, and Eric Maskin and John Riley's 1984 RAND Journal paper Monopoly with Incomplete Information, which solved the menu-design problem and derived the characteristic downward-distortion result.

    This sourceContinuous-type screening with quantity-differentiated goods; the companion to Mussa-Rosen for second-degree price discrimination.

    Supported in partVerified against the publisher's abstract

    The abstract confirms a monopolist's optimal nonlinear pricing (quantity discounts) under asymmetric information, but not priority or the downward-distortion clause.

    “The main contribution is to show that, under a separability assumption, strong conclusions can be drawn about the nature of optimal incentive schemes. Although the primary focus is on optimal quantity discounts in a monopolized market, the results also shed light on related topics, such as optimal income taxation and commodity bundling.”

    Read by an automated reader; not a human review. How support was checked

• Screening
  • The theory has been developed for continuous type distributions (Mirrlees 1971 for optimal income taxation; Mussa-Rosen 1978 for quality discrimination; Maskin-Riley 1984

    This sourceContinuous-type screening with quantity-differentiated goods; the companion to Mussa-Rosen for second-degree price discrimination.

Verification

Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.

Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 2 citations: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.

Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.

See how references were verified.

Links previously used in the corpus

Before the registry existed this work was also linked 1 other way.

• https://www.jstor.org/stable/2555674 ×2

Registry ID ref:0923adbb084c · see in the full table