Bureaucrats as entrepreneurs: Do municipal telecommunications providers hinder private entrepreneurs?

Information Economics and Policy

Volumn 20, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 89-102

  Hauge, Janice A ^a   Jamison, Mark A ^b   Gentry, Richard J ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

^c WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Entry; Municipality; Telecommunications

Indexed keywords

COMPETITION; MARKETING; PRIVATIZATION; PUBLIC POLICY; SOCIETIES AND INSTITUTIONS;

COMPETITIVE LOCAL EXCHANGE CARRIERS; GOVERNMENT-OWNED ENTERPRISES; MUNICIPALITY;

ECONOMICS;

COMPETITION (ECONOMICS); ENTREPRENEUR; PROFITABILITY; STATE OWNED ENTERPRISE; TELECOMMUNICATION;

EID: 38749113306     PISSN: 01676245     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.infoecopol.2007.10.004     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. American Public Power Association, 2007. 2006-07 Annual Directory & Statistical Report. Washington, DC.
2. American Public Power Association, 2005. 2004--05 Annual Directory & Statistical Report. Washington, DC.
3. American Public Power Association, 2004. Community Broadband: Separating Fact from Fiction. (accessed 14.10.2005).
4. American Public Power Association, 2003. 2002-03 Annual Directory & Statistical Report. Washington, DC.
5. American Public Power Association, 2001. 2000-01 Annual Directory & Statistical Report. Washington, DC.
6. American Public Power Association, 1999. 1998--99 Annual Directory & Statistical Report. Washington, DC.
7. Burton, M., Macher, J.T., Mayo, J.W. forthcoming. Understanding participation in social programs: why don't households pick up the Lifeline? The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy.
8. Consumer Advocate Division of the Public Service Commission of West Virginia. (accessed 2005).
9. Edwards G., and Waverman L. The effects of public ownership and regulatory independence on regulatory outcomes: a study of interconnect rates in EU telecommunications. Journal of Regulatory Economics 29 1 (2006) 23-67
10. Foreman R.D. For whom the bell alternatives toll: demographics of residential facilities-based telecommunications competition in the United States. Telecommunications Policy 26 9-10 (2002) 573-587
11. Garbacz C., and Thompson Jr. H.G. Estimating telephone demand with state decennial census data from 1970-1990: update with 2000 data. Journal of Regulatory Economics 24 3 (2003) 373-378
12. Gentry, R.J., Jamison, M.A., 2005a. Market behavior and survival of entrepreneurial firms - how do rookies compete? University of Florida, Public Utility Research Center, Working Paper.
13. Gentry, R.J., Jamison, M.A., 2005b. Trait-based imitation among entrepreneurial market entrants. University of Florida, Public Utility Research Center, Working Paper.
14. Giovanetti, T., 2004. Government-owned networks - the wrong plan at the wrong time for broadband. Opinion Editorial, Institute for Policy Innovation. (accessed 31.10.2005).
15. Greenstein S., and Mazzeo M. The role of differentiation strategy in local telecommunication entry and market evolution: 1999-2002. The Journal of Industrial Economics 54 3 (2006) 323-350
16. Jamison M.A. Effects of prices for local network interconnection on market structure in the U.S. In: Bohlin E., Levin S.L., Sung N., and Yoon C.H. (Eds). Global Economy and Digital Society (2004), Elsevier, Amsterdam 301-320
17. National Governors Association, 2005. Governors of the American states, commonwealths and territories. (accessed 01.06.2005).
18. New Paradigm Resources Group, Inc., 2003. CLEC Report 2003. 17th ed., vols. 1 and 2. Chicago, IL.
19. New Paradigm Resources Group, Inc., 2002. CLEC Report 2002. 16th ed., vols. 1 and 2. Chicago, IL.
20. New Paradigm Resources Group, Inc., 2002. CLEC Report 2002. 15th ed., vols. 1 and 2. Chicago, IL.
21. New Paradigm Resources Group, Inc., 2001. CLEC Report 2001. 14th ed., vols. 1, 2, and 3. Chicago, IL.
22. New Paradigm Resources Group, Inc., 2000. CLEC Report 2000. 12th ed., vols. 1 and 2. Chicago, IL.
23. Roycroft T. Empirical analysis of entry in the local exchange market: the case of Pacific Bell. Contemporary Economic Policy 23 1 (2005) 107-115
24. Sappington D.E.M., and Sidak G. Incentives for anticompetitive behavior by public enterprises. Review of Industrial Organization 22 3 (2003) 183-206
25. Tucker C., Brick J.M., and Meekins B. Household telephone service and usage patterns in the Unites States in 2004: implications for telephone samples. Public Opinion Quarterly 71 1 (2007) 1-22
26. U.S. Census Bureau, 2000. Summary files 3 and 4. (accessed 12.11.2004).
27. U.S. Supreme Court, 2004. Nixon v. Missouri municipal league, 541 U.S. 125, Numbers: 02-1238, 02-1386, 02-1405. March 24, 2004.
28. Warren Communications News, Inc., 2005. State telephone regulation report. (accessed 01.05.2005).
29. Zolnierek J., Eisner J., and Burton E. An empirical examination of entry patterns in local telephone markets. Journal of Regulatory Economics 19 2 (2001) 143-159