Reduced Quality and an Unlevel Playing Field Could Make Consumers Happier

References

• Albright T., Roth H. The measurement of quality costs: An alternative approach. Accounting Horizons (1992) JuneGoogle Scholar
• Baiman S., Fischer P., Rajan M. Information, contracting, and quality costs. Management Sci. (2000) 46(6):776–789Link, Google Scholar
• Curry B., George K. Industrial concentration: A survey. J. Indust. Econom. (1983) 31:203–255Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dailla A., Khan K., Vail C. Cost of quality in the new manufacturing environment. Management Accounting (1995) August):20–25Google Scholar
• De Vany A., Saving T. The economics of quality. J. Political Econom. (1983) 91:979–1000Crossref, Google Scholar
• Evans J., Lindsay W.The Management and Control of Quality (1993) (West, St. Paul, MN) Google Scholar
• Farrell J., Shapiro C. Horizontal mergers: An equilibrium analysis. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1990a) 80(1):107–126Google Scholar
• Farrell J., Shapiro C. Asset ownership and market structure in oligopoly. RAND J. Econom. (1990b) 21(2):275–292Crossref, Google Scholar
• Greising D. Quality: How to make it pay. Business Week (1994) August 8):54–59Google Scholar
• Koenigsberg E. Uncertainty capacity and market share in oligopoly: A stochastic theory of product quality. J. Bus. (1980) 53(2):151–164Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leffler K. Ambiguous changes in product quality. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1982) 72:956–967Google Scholar
• Leland H. Quality choice and competition. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1977) 67:127–137Google Scholar
• Leland H. Quacks lemons, and licensing: A theory of minimum quality standards. J. Political Econom. (1979) 87:1328–1346Crossref, Google Scholar
• Levin D. Horizontal mergers: The 50-percent benchmark. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1990) 1238–1245Google Scholar
• Miller C. TQM value criticized in new report. Marketing News (1992) 26:1–16Google Scholar
• Perry M., Porter R. Oligopoly and the incentives for horizontal merger. Amer. Econom. Rev. (1985) 75(1):219–227Google Scholar
• Schilit K. The case against quality. Bus. Horizons (1994) 37:27–34Crossref, Google Scholar
• Simpson E. The interpretation of interaction in contingency tables. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. (1951) 13(2):38–41Google Scholar
• Scholes M., Wolfson M.Taxes and Business Strategy: A Planning Approach (1992) (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ) Google Scholar
• Spence A. M. Monopoly quality and regulation. Bell J. Econom. (1975) 6(2):417–429Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stickney C., Weil R.Financial Accounting: An Introduction to Concepts, Methods, and Uses (2003) 10th ed.(Thomson Southwestern)Google Scholar
• Sunder S. Simpson reversal paradox and cost allocation. J. Accounting Res. (1983) 21(1):222–233Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taguchi G., Clausing D. Robust quality. Harvard Bus. Rev. (1990) 68(1):67–75Google Scholar
• Terwiesch C., Bohn R. Learning and process improvement during production ramp-up. Internat. J. Production Econom. (2001) 70:1–19Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tirole J.The Theory of Industrial Organization (1988) (MIT Press, Cambridge MA) Google Scholar