Vol. 6 No. 1 (2018): BUSINESS & MANAGEMENT STUDIES: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL
Articles

SECTOR SEPECIFIC REGULATIONS AND BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS: REFLECTIONS ON THE DECISION NUMBERED 149

PDF (Türkçe)
  • Emin KÖKSAL,
  • Şahin ARDIYOK
Emin KÖKSAL
Bahçeşehir Üniversitesi, Ekonomi Bölümü
Şahin ARDIYOK
Bilkent Üniversitesi; Balcığoğlu-Selçuk-Akman-Keki Avukat Ortaklığı
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v6i1.210

Published 2018-04-25

How to Cite

KÖKSAL, E., & ARDIYOK, Şahin. (2018). SECTOR SEPECIFIC REGULATIONS AND BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS: REFLECTIONS ON THE DECISION NUMBERED 149. Business & Management Studies: An International Journal, 6(1), 86–106. https://doi.org/10.15295/bmij.v6i1.210

Abstract

This paper emphasizes that designing sector specific regulations, based on the rational individual assumption, may not establish a competitive environment and it has a potential to create social opportunity cost. Based on the behavioral economics literature, the paper provides a systematic critique on the regulation of ICTA in respect of the Decision numbered 149, which entered into force in 2009 and was abolished in 2016. The primary conclusion of the paper suggests that the regulation does not reflect the real purchasing behavior of the consumers. The second conclusion indicates that while designing the regulation, possible exploitative behavior of the regulated undertaking, through using the biases of consumers, are ignored.

PDF (Türkçe)

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

  1. Ariely, D., Loewenstein, G., & Prelec, D. (2003). “Coherent Arbitrariness”: Stable Demand Curves Without Stable Preferences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(1), 73–106. http://doi.org/10.1162/00335530360535153
  2. Ariely, D., & Wertenbroch, K. (2002). Procrastination, Deadlines, and Performance: Self-Control by Precommitment. Psychological Science, 13(3), 219–224. http://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00441
  3. Armstrong, M. (2008). Interactions between competition and consumer policy. In Competition Policy International (Vol. 4, pp. 97–147).
  4. Atiyas, I., & Doǧan, P. (2007). When good intentions are not enough: Sequential entry and competition in the Turkish mobile industry. Telecommunications Policy, 31(8–9), 502–523. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.telpol.2007.05.012
  5. Della Vigna, S., & Malmendier, U. (2006). Paying Not to Go to the Gym. American Economic Review, 96(3), 694–719. http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.96.3.694
  6. DellaVigna, S. (2009). Psychology and economics: Evidence from the field. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(2), 315–372. http://doi.org/10.1257/jel.47.2.315
  7. DelVecchio, D., Krishnan, H. S., & Smith, D. C. (2007). Cents or Percent? The Effects of Promotion Framing on Price Expectations and Choice. Journal of Marketing, 71(3), 158–170. http://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.3.158
  8. Frederick, S., Loewenstein, G., & O’Donoghue, T. (2002). Time Discounting and Preference : A Critical Review. Journal of Economic Literature. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.151.3712.867-a
  9. Gabrielsen, T. S., & Vagstad, S. (2008). Why is on-net traffic cheaper than off-net traffic? Access markup as a collusive device. European Economic Review, 52(1), 99–115. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2007.02.002
  10. Gilovich, T., Vallone, R., & Tversky, A. (1985). The hot hand in basketball: On the misperception of random sequences. Cognitive Psychology, 17(3), 295–314. http://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(85)90010-6
  11. Grubb, M. D. (2009). Selling to overconfident consumers. American Economic Review, 99(5), 1770–1807. http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.99.5.1770
  12. Hsu, S. H., Huang, C. Y., & Tang, C. T. (2007). Minimax play at wimbledon: Comment. American Economic Review. http://doi.org/10.1257/aer.97.1.517
  13. Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002). Representativeness revisted: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgement. Heuristics of Intuitive Judgment: Extensions and Applications. http://doi.org/10.1038/2251090a0
  14. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1990). Experimental Tests of the Endowment Effect and the Coase Theorem. Journal of Political Economy, 98(6), 1325–1348. http://doi.org/10.1086/261737
  15. Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The Endowment Effect, Loss Aversion, and Status Quo Bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 5(1), 193–206. http://doi.org/10.1257/jep.5.1.193
  16. Kulalı, İ., & Bilir, H. (2012). Türkiye GSM Pazarına Genel Bir Bakış: Şebeke Etkisi , Pazar Yapısı ve Sektörel Düzenlemeler. Süleyman Demirel Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, 17(3), 415–439.
  17. Laffont, J.-J., Rey, P., & Tirole, J. (1998). Network Competition: II. Price Discrimination. The RAND Journal of Economics, 29(1), 38. http://doi.org/10.2307/2555815
  18. Laibson, D. (1997). Golden Eggs and Hyperbolic Discounting. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 443–478. http://doi.org/10.1162/003355397555253
  19. Lambrecht, A., & Skiera, B. (2006). Paying Too Much and Being Happy About It: Existence, Causes, and Consequences of Tariff-Choice Biases. Journal of Marketing Research, 43(2), 212–223. http://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.43.2.212
  20. Levin, I. P., Wall, L. L., Dolezal, J. M., & Norman, K. L. (1973). Differential weighting of positive and negative traits in impression formation as a function of prior exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 97(1), 114–115. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0033846
  21. Li, S., Sun, Y., & Wang, Y. (2007). 50% Off or Buy One Get One Free? Frame Preference as a Function of Consumable Nature in Dairy Products. The Journal of Social Psychology, 147(4), 413–421. http://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.147.4.413-422
  22. López, Á. L., & Rey, P. (2016). Foreclosing Competition Through High Access Charges and Price Discrimination. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 64(3), 436–465. http://doi.org/10.1111/joie.12115
  23. Lunn, P. D. (2013). Telecommunications Consumers: A Behavioral Economic Analysis. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 47(1), 167–189. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.2012.01245.x
  24. Miravete, E. J. (2003). Choosing the wrong calling plan? Ignorance and learning. American Economic Review. http://doi.org/10.1257/000282803321455304
  25. Pauwels, K., & Weiss, A. (2008). Moving from Free to Fee: How Online Firms Market to Change Their Business Model Successfully. Journal of Marketing, 72(3), 14–31. http://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.72.3.14
  26. Plott, C. R., & Zeiler, K. (2005). The Willingness to Pay–Willingness to Accept Gap, the “Endowment Effect,” Subject Misconceptions, and Experimental Procedures for Eliciting Valuations. American Economic Review, 95(3), 530–545. http://doi.org/10.1257/0002828054201387
  27. Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564
  28. Thaler, R. H. (1981). Some Empirical Evidence on Dynamic Inconsistency. Economic Letters. http://doi.org/10.1016/0165-1765(81)90067-7
  29. Thaler, R. H., & Shefrin, H. M. (1981). An Economic Theory of Self-Control. Journal of Political Economy, 89(2), 392–406. http://doi.org/10.1086/260971
  30. Train, K. E., McFadden, D. L., & Ben-Akiva, M. (1987). The Demand for Local Telephone Service: A Fully Discrete Model of Residential Calling Patterns and Service Choices. The RAND Journal of Economics, 18(1), 109–123. http://doi.org/10.2307/2555538
  31. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1971). Belief in the law of small numbers. Psychological Bulletin, 76(2), 105–110. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0031322
  32. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
  33. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458. http://doi.org/10.1126/science.7455683