Menu cost
Investopedia Financial Dictionary:
Top
Menu Costs
An economic term used to describe the cost incurred by firms in order to change their prices. How expensive it is to change prices depends on the type of firm. For example, it may be necessary to reprint menus, update price lists or retag merchandise on the shelf. Even when there are few apparent costs to changing prices, changing prices may make customers apprehensive about buying at a given price, resulting in a menu cost of lost sales.
Investopedia Says:
The net result of menu costs is that prices are sticky. That is to say, firms are hesitant to change their prices until there is a sufficient disparity between the firm's current price and the equilibrium market price. In theory, a firm should not change its price until the price change will result in enough additional revenues to cover the menu costs. In practice, however, it may be difficult to determine the equilibrium market price or to account for all menu costs, so it is hard for firms and consumers to behave precisely in this manner.
Related Links:
Learn how to use double tops and double bottoms in currency trading. The Memory Of Price
Learn how to evaluate the legitimacy of target prices and why investors should trust these over ratings. Target Prices: The Key To Sound Investing
Find out how this figure relates to your investment portfolio. What You Should Know About Inflation
Understanding this key concept can drastically improve your short-term investing strategy. Support & Resistance Basics
You can't predict exactly how stocks will behave, but knowing what affects prices will put you ahead of the pack. Forces That Move Stock Prices
Wikipedia on Answers.com:
Top
Menu cost
 |
This article does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (July 2011) |
In economics, a menu cost is the cost to a firm resulting from changing its prices. The name stems from the cost of restaurants literally printing new menus, but economists use it to refer to the costs of changing nominal prices in general. In this broader definition, menu costs might include updating computer systems, re-tagging items, and hiring consultants to develop new pricing strategies as well as the literal costs of printing menus. More generally, the menu cost can be thought of as resulting from costs of information, decision and implementation resulting in bounded rationality. Because of this expense, firms sometimes do not always change their prices with every change in supply and demand, leading to price stickiness.
Generally, the effect on the firm of small shifts in price (by changes in supply and/or demand, or else because of slight adjustments in monetary policy) are relatively minor compared to the costs of notifying the public of this new information. Therefore, the firm would rather exist in slight disequilbrium than incur the menu costs.
|
Contents
|
History
The concept of a lump-sum cost (menu cost) to changing the price was originally introduced by Sheshinski and Weiss (1977) in their paper looking at the effect of inflation on the frequency of price-changes.[1] The idea of applying it as a general theory of Nominal Price Rigidity was simultaneously put forward by several in 1985-6. George Akerlof and Janet Yellen put forward the idea that due to bounded rationality firms will not want to change their price unless the benefit is more than a small amount [2] [3]. This bounded rationality leads to inertia in nominal prices and wages which can lead to output fluctuating at constant nominal prices and wages. Gregory Mankiw took the menu-cost idea and focussed on the welfare effects of changes in output resulting from sticky prices [4]. Michael Parkin also put forward the idea. [5]
The menu cost idea was also applied to wages and prices by Olivier Blanchard and Nobihuro Kiyotaki[6]. The new Keynesian explanation of price stickiness relied on introducing imperfect competition with price (and wage) setting agents[7]. This started a shift in macroeconomics away from using the model of perfect competition with price taking agents to using imperfectly competitive equilibria with price and wage setting agents (mostly adopting monopolistic competition). Huw Dixon and Claus Hansen [8] showed that even if menu costs applied to a small sector of the economy, this would influence the rest of the economy and lead to prices in the rest of the economy becoming less responsive to changes in demand.
Deeper analysis
Consider a hypothetical firm in a hypothetical economy, with a concave graph describing the relationship between the price of its good and the firm's corresponding profit. As always, the profit maximizing point lies at the very top for the curve.
Now suppose that there exists a drop in aggregate output. While this causes real wages to fall (shifting the profit curve upward, allowing more profit for the same price), it also diminishes demand for the firm's product (shifting the curve down). Suppose the net effect is a downward shift (as it usually is).
The result is a maximum profit associated with a lower price (the max profit shifts to the left a bit, as a result of the profit curve moving). Suppose the old price (and thus the old maximizing profit price) was M and the new maximizing price is N. Also suppose the new maximum profit is B and new profit corresponding to the old price is A. Thus price M yields A in profit and price N yields B in profit.
Now suppose there is a menu cost, Z, in changing from price M to price N. Because the firm must pay Z to make this change, they will only pay it if Z < B-A. Thus tiny fluctuations in the economy leads to small differences in B and A so firms do not change their price, even if Z is small.
Note that if Z is zero, then prices will change all the time, allowing for firms to squeeze out every bit of profit from every change in the economy.
See also
References
- ^ Sheshinski, Eytan & Weiss, Yoram, 1977. "Inflation and Costs of Price Adjustment," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 287-303, June
- ^ Akerlof, George A & Yellen, Janet L, 1985. "Can Small Deviations from Rationality Make Significant Differences to Economic Equilibria?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(4), pages 708-20, September
- ^ Akerlof, George A & Yellen, Janet L, 1985. "A Near-rational Model of the Business Cycle, with Wage and Price Intertia," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 100(5), pages 823-38, Supp
- ^ Mankiw, N Gregory, 1985. "Small Menu Costs and Large Business Cycles: A Macroeconomic Model," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 100(2), pages 529-38, May
- ^ Michael Parkin(1986), The Output-Inflation Trade-off When Prices Are Costly to Change, Journal of Political Economy , Vol. 94, No. 1 (Feb., 1986), pp. 200-224
- ^ Blanchard, O.and Kiyotaki, N., 1987. 'Monopolistic competition and the effects of aggregate demand', American Economic Review, 77, 647-66
- ^ Huw Dixon (1995), The Role of imperfect competition in new Keynesian economics, Surfing Economics chapter 4
- ^ Huw Dixon and Claus Hansen, A mixed industrial structure magnifies the importance of menu costs, European Economic Review, 1999, pages 1475-1499.
This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)
Post a question - any question - to the WikiAnswers community:
Copyrights:
Investopedia Financial Dictionary
Copyright ©2010, Investopedia.com - Owned and Operated by Investopedia US, A Division of ValueClick, Inc. All rights reserved.
Read more
