主管:中国科学院
主办:中国优选法统筹法与经济数学研究会
   中国科学院科技战略咨询研究院

中国管理科学 ›› 2026, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (4): 218-230.doi: 10.16381/j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2024.0756cstr: 32146.14.j.cnki.issn1003-207x.2024.0756

• • 上一篇    下一篇

价格歧视与个人信息保护——基于两期动态寡头竞争模型的分析

王智宇1,2, 丁川1,2(), 王丽媛1,2   

  1. 1.西南财经大学数学学院,四川 成都 611130
    2.西南财经大学金融安全与行为大数据实验室,四川 成都 611130
  • 收稿日期:2024-05-11 修回日期:2024-08-30 出版日期:2026-04-25 发布日期:2026-03-27
  • 通讯作者: 丁川 E-mail:dingchuan@swufe.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金面上项目(72371202);四川省自然科学基金面上项目(2024NSFSC0268)

Price Discrimination and Personal Information Protection: Based on a Two-Stage Dynamic Duopoly Model

Zhiyu Wang1,2, Chuan Ding1,2(), Liyuan Wang1,2   

  1. 1.School of Mathematics,Southwestern University of Finance and Economics,Chengdu 611130,China
    2.Big Data Laboratory on Financial Security and Behavior,Southwestern University of Finance and Economics,Chengdu 611130,China
  • Received:2024-05-11 Revised:2024-08-30 Online:2026-04-25 Published:2026-03-27
  • Contact: Chuan Ding E-mail:dingchuan@swufe.edu.cn

摘要:

数字经济时代,信息技术飞速发展,企业对消费者数据的滥用以及个人信息隐私属性的加强,引发了社会对价格歧视与个人信息保护问题的担忧。本文从企业信息收集与基于消费者信息的价格歧视两个阶段出发,构建两期动态寡头竞争模型,探讨个人信息保护政策对企业竞争、定价策略和消费者决策的影响,以及与各方福利之间的关系。研究发现,自愿个人信息保护政策能阻止由“大数据杀熟”带来的三级价格歧视,实现最优社会福利与生产者剩余。然而,这同时会导致企业通过“默契合谋”实现一级价格歧视,从而损害消费者福利。无个人信息保护政策可以弥补企业初始市场份额的不对称性,激化市场竞争,实现次优的社会福利与消费者剩余,但仅能实现最低的生产者剩余。信息资源的无效配置导致社会福利的无谓损失,因此,强制个人信息保护政策只能实现最低的社会福利。

关键词: 数字经济, 价格歧视, 个人信息保护, 社会福利

Abstract:

In the era of digital economy, with the advancement of artificial intelligence and digital mining technologies, firms are increasingly able to extract valuable information from consumer data. By creating precise consumer profiles, firms can engage in third-degree or even first-degree price discrimination. This gives rise to issues such as “big data discriminatory pricing” and personal information protection, posing significant challenges to government policymaking. A two-period dynamic duopoly model is constructed to study firms' pricing strategies and consumers' purchasing decisions. Based on the model, the fundamental characteristics and mechanisms of personalized pricing by firms are analyzed based on consumers' purchasing histories. Furthermore, a comparative analysis of different personal information protection policies is conducted from the perspective of welfare metrics and implications for management are provided.The main conclusions of this paper are as follows First, under both mandatory and no personal information protection policies, the phenomenon of “big data-driven price discrimination” emerges. Under voluntary personal information protection policy, firms raise uniform prices in the second period to erect a “price barrier” for consumers, colluding tacitly to avoid repeated competition for new and existing consumers, while simultaneously engaging in first-degree price discrimination toward their loyal customers. Although this eliminates the appearance of “big data discriminatory pricing”, it weakens market competition and deprives all consumers of their surplus in the second period through personalized pricing. Second, under voluntary personal information protection policy, first-degree price discrimination does not result in deadweight loss to social welfare but does lead to an inequality in producer and consumer welfare. Optimal social welfare and producer surplus can be achieved, but the consumer surplus reaches its lowest level. In contrast, under no personal information protection policy, market competition is intensified by addressing initial market share asymmetries, resulting in suboptimal social welfare and consumer surplus but the lowest producer surplus. Inefficient allocation of information resources leads to unnecessary social welfare losses, suggesting that mandatory personal information protection policy only achieve minimal social welfare. Third, given that optimal producer and consumer surplus cannot be achieved simultaneously, the government should adopt a problem-oriented approach when selecting policies and carefully balance efficiency and equity considerations. Specifically, to address efficiency issues in the digital economy, the government could adopt voluntary personal information protection policy, transferring consumer surplus to firms to curb “big data discriminatory pricing” and thereby enhance overall social welfare. To address equity issues, the government could implement no personal information protection policy to foster market competition, improve consumer welfare, and achieve suboptimal social welfare.

Key words: digital economy, price discrimination, personal information protection, social welfare

中图分类号: