Question A:
Amazon has monopsony power in the market for books that is significantly reducing the supply of books.
Responses
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
14%
2%
9%
30%
33%
9%
2%
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
15%
31%
35%
14%
4%
Question B:
Amazon has sufficient monopsony power that regulatory intervention is likely to make consumers of books better off, taking into account implementation costs and the effect of intervention on incentives.
Responses
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
14%
7%
12%
26%
35%
7%
0%
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
© 2025. Kent A. Clark Center for Global Markets.
17%
31%
42%
10%
0%
Question A Participant Responses
Participant |
University |
Vote |
Confidence |
Bio/Vote History |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Alberto Alesina |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Amazon has some monopsony power but its platform is probably making author access easier.
|
||||
 Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
In general, Amazon is not using its monopsony to reduce supply. But in the case of Hachette books, it certainly is.
|
||||
 Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Abhijit Banerjee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Markus Brunnermeier |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
It seems likely that Amazon is on net raising author income in the part of the distribution where the supply restriction would be.
|
||||
 Janet Currie |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Seems like a matter of public record!
|
||||
 Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Amazon might instead use its market power to reduce its costs, or to limit entry by other suppliers. I need to know more to be confident.
|
||||
 Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Liran Einav |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Amy Finkelstein |
MIT | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
 Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Complicated issue. The main bone of contention so far has been its policy of low pricing for ebooks. Not sure of the effects on authors.
|
||||
 Oliver Hart |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Classic monopsonists reduce supply; final prices rise. This doesn't describe Amazon.I don't know evidence that book supply is lower.
|
||||
 Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
There appears to be no soundly derived empirical evidence for this claim. I read every article related to this and its just not there.
|
||||
 Hilary Hoynes |
Berkeley | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Too many alternatives, too much potential entry.
|
||||
 Steven Kaplan |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
This follows from standard textbook analysis.
|
||||
 William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Unclear what counterfactual is. Without Amazon? Or with Amazon and no market power?
|
||||
 Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Larry Samuelson |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Compared to no electronic market, Amazon has probably increased supply. Compared to a "competitive electronic market," probably not.
|
||||
 José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Amazon's policies are probably reducing the supply of ebooks.
|
||||
 Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Some monopsony power, sure; significant impact on supply, possible but not especially likely.
|
||||
 Carl Shapiro |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Robert Shimer |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Maybe in the future, certainly not now.
|
||||
 Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Amazon greatly increases the availability of most books, esp academic books, but is making it hard to get some books. So how to answer?
|
||||
 Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Amazon has some monopsony power, but weak. And lower transaction costs of books on balance positive.
-see background information here |
||||
Question B Participant Responses
Participant |
University |
Vote |
Confidence |
Bio/Vote History |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Alberto Alesina |
Harvard | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Intervention is costly and premature. So far, book consumers have probably benefited.
|
||||
|
Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Intervention could be as simple as a stern warning. At present, Amazon is heading towards a market position that is anti-competitive.
|
||||
|
Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Abhijit Banerjee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Markus Brunnermeier |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Strategic delayed shipping of books from certain publishing houses and other measures can hurt consumers.
|
||||
|
Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Currently I cannot identify a specific practice that it would be sensible to address with a regulatory intervention.
|
||||
|
Janet Currie |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Who knows what would happen, but seems unlikely to end well.
|
||||
|
Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Maybe publishers and authors are those to most benefit from regulatory protection. I would need more information in order to better guess.
|
||||
|
Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Liran Einav |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Amy Finkelstein |
MIT | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Oliver Hart |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I don't see evidence that consumers and authors are suffering. The market is fast-moving. Regulators should monitor but be cautious.
|
||||
|
Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
There is evidence of higher diversity & price elasticity in online book retail so there would need to be serious evidence to offset this.
|
||||
|
Hilary Hoynes |
Berkeley | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Steven Kaplan |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
|
Eric Maskin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Monopsony power helps lower Amazon's costs, enabling then to set lower consumer prices.
|
||||
|
William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Unclear question. If regulation = antitrust, yes. Otherwise, probably not but unclear what that might be.
|
||||
|
Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Larry Samuelson |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Electronic markets are full of network externalities, which should be recognized as a form of natural monopoly.
|
||||
|
José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Just because there's monopsony (or monopoly) power doesn't mean there is a regulatory fix, and I don't see one here.
|
||||
|
Carl Shapiro |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The press reports I have seen have not yet identified any conduct by Amazon that appears to be an antitrust violation.
|
||||
|
Robert Shimer |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
|
Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Too vague to answer. What sort of regulation? By whom?
|
||||
|
Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
