One of the more interesting out-of-the way corners of the
field of Economics is what might be called the pure theory of location. If we
assume that consumers are completely rational and have perfect knowledge, that
all the retail outlets selling a particular commodity offer identical instances
of the commodity at the same price, and that consumers make their buying
decisions solely on the basis of how close a retail outlet is to where they are
[and of course that all consumers prefer the closer outlet], once one retailer
has entered the field, where is the rational place for a second retailer to
locate?
You might think the answer would be something like: Not too
close to the first retailer, but maybe half way between that retailer and the
edge of the space in which the consumers are located. You might think that, but you would be
wrong. The correct answer is, right next
door to the first retailer.
To see why this is so, consider a one-dimensional world in
which everyone – retailers and consumers alike – is located somewhere along a
line of finite length. [This is of
course unlikely, although not more unlikely than most of the other assumptions
modern economists make, but my basic point is the same even if folks are spread
out in two dimensions, such as in a city.]
The first retailer to open a shop commands the entire market. Since there may be some distance beyond which
some consumers are unwilling to travel, and assuming that consumers are
distributed evenly along the line, the best place for this first retailer to
locate is right in the middle of the line, the minimum average distance from a
randomly chosen consumer.
A second retailer, who decides to enter into competition
with the first, must locate either to the right or the left of the center of
the line. If she chooses left, she
concedes all sales to consumers lying to the right of center, because she must
be farther from any of them than is her competitor. She maximizes her sales by nestling right up
against the left flank of the first retailer’s shop, thereby snagging all of
the business to her left. She and her
competitor then can wrangle over who gets the business of any consumers who
happen to be located on the dividing line between their two shops.
I reflected on this truth this morning. It rained cats and dogs for several hours,
and when it finally let up, we went out for a walk. We strolled up rue de la Montagne Ste. Geneviève
as far as rue des Écoles, and decided to have a coffee in a café we had never
before frequented. We sat by the window,
and I idly looked out the window on the street we had just walked up. There, right next door to one another, were
the only two Tibetan restaurants in the 5th arrondissement. “Boy,” I thought, “what on earth can they be
thinking, locating right next to one another.
Why doesn’t one of them move to rue St. Jacques or Place St. Michel?” And then I remembered my elementary Economics.
7 comments:
By the by, this particular location model is referred to as Hotelling's law (or Hotelling's line as it was taught to me in my undergrad). There's a bit more on it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hotelling's_law
Also seems to partially explain why so many petrol (that's gasoline to you Yankees I suppose) stations cluster together...
Marvelous! I am trying to figure out whether your internet handle means that your name is R.I. Shimon, or is a play on Rashomon. Thanks for the tip.
« The only two tibetan restaurants in the 5th arrondissement. »
In the 5th arrondissement,there are at least 6 tibetan restaurants, two of which are indeed on the rue St Jacques, one at each end of this very long street.
http://www.restoaparis.com/liste-restaurant-paris/1-10--Tibetainetrad75005
I guess the high number of tibetan restaurants in this arrondissement could in itself be considered an example of the economic law you're describing. Nevertheless, I find this rather unconvincing.
Since you obviously lack data on this particular sector of the economy, you just shouldn't jump to that kind of conclusion.
Choose better examples in the future.
Whoops. I stand corrected. My apologies. Now comes the really important question: If I go to a Tibetan restaurant, what should I order?
If I go to a Tibetan restaurant, what should I order?
I had grilled llama for the first time the other day. I can't say it was great, but maybe see if they have that?
I used to notice something like this when I lived in Russia, w/ old women selling sunflower seeds. They would sit right next to each other at a bus stop. No one would sit across the street. Why not sit across the street? I'd think. But in this case, I think the desire for conversation was more important than the truths of economic theory.
Matt, I am going to assume that your comment is a witty allusion to Ogden Nash's famous verse about one-l and two-l llamas/lamas. Very cool.
Yes- I'm glad the reference was clear enough!
Post a Comment