Explore the vast range of titles available.

Although oil price shocks have long been viewed as one of the leading candidates for explaining U.S. recessions, surprisingly little is known about the extent to which oil price shocks explain recessions. We provide a formal analysis of this question with special attention to the possible role of net oil price increases in amplifying the transmission of oil price shocks. We quantify the conditional effect of oil price shocks in the net oil price increase model for all episodes of net oil price increases since the mid-1970s, analyze its determinants, and show that the linear model fits the data better.

Purpose Governmental regulations aiming to protect environmental goals often require firms to increase sales prices with negative consequences on price fairness perception. Companies might therefore either justify the price increase by highlighting the good cause (environmental framing) or they could blame the government for the regulation (governmental framing). Firms might also communicate their investments in the relationship to motivate customers to stay. This paper aims to examine the impact of such communication content on price increase fairness perception and switching intention in a contractual service setting. Design/methodology/approach This paper first examines the content of 119 price increase letters from electricity suppliers in a qualitative pilot study. The main study then tests our research framework with 552 respondents using a 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects experimental scenario design (manipulating framing, effort and regret communication). Findings Customers perceive governmental framing as fairer than environmental framing. Effort and regret communication by firms weaken or reverse this effect. They reduce customers’ fairness perception for the governmental framing, while regret communication increases it for the environmental framing. However, regret communication also increases switching intention in both framings through a strong direct effect. Research limitations/implications Cost-induced price increases are perceived on a “locus continuum” on which reason-framing and relationship investments can shift the consumer perception. Future studies may apply our framework in different industries and contexts. Practical implications The results provide guidelines for communicating price increases. Firms should prefer a governmental framing and they should also hesitate to communicate relationship investments, which signal internal locus of the firm, such as effort or regret. Originality/value Our results question the naive assumption of general positive effects of environmental framings and relationship investments on customer responses. Based on a new view on attributions of cost-caused price increases, we suggest and find several counterintuitive results. We argue that the framing and relationship investments shift the cause perception of an external cost increase on the attributional locus continuum.

[Display omitted] •Consumers judge cost-based price increases by firms with higher market power as less fair.•Unfairness perceptions arise because price increases by firms with high market power are seen as controllable and exploitive.•Increasing prices to exploit demand is seen as unfair regardless of market power.•Price increases clearly beyond the firm’s control are seen as fair regardless of market power. How does market power affect consumer perceptions and purchase behavior? In the theoretically and pragmatically important context of price increases, we theorize that (i) consumer price fairness perceptions decline with market power when a price increase is due to costs; and (ii) this fairness difference arises due to greater perceptions of controllability and, in turn, exploitation by firms with higher market power. Consistent with our theorizing, we further argue that market power does not affect fairness (iii) when prices rise due to demand (which is perceived as equally exploitative and unfair regardless of firm power) or (iv) when price increases are clearly beyond the firm’s control (and perceived as equally fair for firms with high and low market power). We provide empirical support for these predictions in a series of behavioral experiments combined with an analysis of retail scanner data. Together, our findings shed light on how market power and pricing actions jointly drive consumer perceptions of unfairness, with implications for firms’ pricing strategies, competition in the retail marketplace, and the principle of dual entitlement as a community standard of fairness in pricing.

Background: Longitudinal assessment of the impact of tobacco price on smoking cessation is scarce. Our objective was to investigate the effect of a price increase in October 2010 on cessation rates according to gender, age, socioeconomic status, and level of tobacco dependence in Japan. Methods: We used longitudinal data linkage of two nationally representative studies and followed 2702 smokers for assessment of their cessation status. The odds ratios (ORs) for cessation were calculated using logistic regression. To estimate the impact of the 2010 tobacco price increase on cessation, data from 2007 were used as a reference category. Results: Overall cessation rates significantly increased from 2007 to 2010, from 3.7% to 10.7% for men and from 9.9% to 16.3% for women. Cessation rates were 9.3% for men who smoked 1-10 cigarettes per day, 2.7% for men who smoked 11-20 cigarettes per day, and 2.0% for men who smoked more than 20 cigarettes per day in 2007. These rates increased to 15.5%, 10.0%, and 8.0%, respectively, in 2010. The impact was stronger among subjects who smoked more than 11 cigarettes per day than those who smoked 1-10 cigarettes per day in both sexes: ORs for 2010 were 4.04 for those smoking 11-20 cigarettes per day, 4.26 for those smoking more than 20 cigarettes per day, and 1.80 for those smoking 1-10 cigarettes per day in the main model in men. There were no obvious differences in the relationship between tobacco price increase and smoking cessation across age and household expenditure groups. Conclusions: The tobacco price increase in Japan had a significant impact on smoking cessation in both sexes, especially among heavy smokers, with no clear difference in effect by socio-demographic status.

It has been 40 years since the oil crisis of 1973/74. This crisis has been one of the defining economic events of the 1970s and has shaped how many economists think about oil price shocks. In recent years, a large literature on the economic determinants of oil price fluctuations has emerged. Drawing on this literature, we first provide an overview of the causes of all major oil price fluctuations between 1973 and 2014. We then discuss why oil price fluctuations remain difficult to predict, despite economists’ improved understanding of oil markets. Unexpected oil price fluctuations are commonly referred to as oil price shocks. We document that, in practice, consumers, policymakers, financial market participants, and economists may have different oil price expectations, and that, what may be surprising to some, need not be equally surprising to others.

This paper proposes a multiple discrete continuous nested extreme value (MDCNEV) model to analyze household expenditures for transportation-related items in relation to a host of other consumption categories. The model system presented in this paper is capable of providing a comprehensive assessment of how household consumption patterns (including savings) would be impacted by increases in fuel prices or any other household expense. The MDCNEV model presented in this paper is estimated on disaggregate consumption data from the 2002 Consumer Expenditure Survey data of the United States. Model estimation results show that a host of household and personal socio-economic, demographic, and location variables affect the proportion of monetary resources that households allocate to various consumption categories. Sensitivity analysis conducted using the model demonstrates the applicability of the model for quantifying consumption adjustment patterns in response to rising fuel prices. It is found that households adjust their food consumption, vehicular purchases, and savings rates in the short run. In the long term, adjustments are also made to housing choices (expenses), calling for the need to ensure that fuel price effects are adequately reflected in integrated microsimulation models of land use and travel.

Can food prices cause social unrest? Throughout history, riots have frequently broken out, ostensibly as a consequence of high food prices. Using monthly data at the international level, this article studies the impact of food prices – food price levels as well as food price volatility – on social unrest. Because food prices and social unrest are jointly determined, data on natural disasters are used to identify the causal relationship flowing from food price levels to social unrest. Results indicate that for the period 1990–2011, food price increases have led to increases in social unrest, whereas food price volatility has not been associated with increases in social unrest. These results are robust to alternative definitions of social unrest, to using real or nominal prices, to using commodity-specific price indices instead of aggregated price indices, to alternative definitions of the instrumental variable, to alternative definitions of volatility, and to controlling for non-food-related social unrest.

Shocks to the real price of oil may reflect oil supply shocks, shocks to the global demand for all industrial commodities, or demand shocks that are specific to the crude oil market. Each shock has different effects on the real price of oil and on US macroeconomic aggregates. Changes in the composition of shocks help explain why regressions of macroeconomic aggregates on oil prices tend to be unstable. Evidence that the recent surge in oil prices was driven primarily by global demand shocks helps explain why this shock so far has failed to cause a major recession in the United States. (JEL E31, E32, Q41, Q43)