The Economics of AI Supply Chain Regulation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.12630v1
• Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 04:03:55 GMT
• Title: The Economics of AI Supply Chain Regulation
• Abstract summary: This study employs a game-theoretic model involving a provider and two competing downstream firms to analyze how policy interventions affect consumer surplus in the AI supply chain.<n>Our analysis shows that policies promoting price competition in downstream markets (i.e., pro-price-competitive policies) boost consumer surplus only when compute or data preprocessing costs are high.<n>In contrast, policies promoting quality competition in downstream markets (i.e., pro-quality-competitive policies) always improve consumer surplus.
• Score: 0.21240872088122253
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The rise of foundation models has driven the emergence of AI supply chains, where upstream foundation model providers offer fine-tuning and inference services to downstream firms developing domain-specific applications. Downstream firms pay providers to use their computing infrastructure to fine-tune models with proprietary data, creating a co-creation dynamic that enhances model quality. Amid concerns that foundation model providers and downstream firms may capture excessive consumer surplus, along with increasing regulatory measures, this study employs a game-theoretic model involving a provider and two competing downstream firms to analyze how policy interventions affect consumer surplus in the AI supply chain. Our analysis shows that policies promoting price competition in downstream markets (i.e., pro-price-competitive policies) boost consumer surplus only when compute or data preprocessing costs are high, while compute subsidies are effective only when these costs are low, suggesting these policies complement each other. In contrast, policies promoting quality competition in downstream markets (i.e., pro-quality-competitive policies) always improve consumer surplus. We also find that under pro-price-competitive policies or compute subsidies, both the provider and downstream firms can achieve higher profits along with greater consumer surplus, creating a win-win-win outcome. However, pro-quality-competitive policies increase the provider's profits while reducing those of downstream firms. Finally, as compute costs decline, pro-price-competitive policies may lose their effectiveness, whereas compute subsidies may shift from ineffective to effective. These findings offer insights for policymakers seeking to foster AI supply chains that are economically efficient and socially beneficial.

Related papers

• The Economics of Builder Saturation in Digital Markets [0.7252027234425333]
  We introduce the Builder Saturation Effect, formalizing a model in which production scales elastically but human attention remains finite.<n>We show that equilibrium outcomes exhibit declining average payoffs and increasing concentration, consistent with power-law-like distributions.<n>Results suggest that AI-enabled, democratised production is more likely to intensify competition and produce winner-take-most outcomes than to generate broadly distributed entrepreneurial success.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-24T19:47:44Z)
• Computational Arbitrage in AI Model Markets [73.20636221068352]
  An arbitrageur efficiently allocates inference budget across providers to undercut the market.<n>We show that simple arbitrage strategies generate net profit margins of up to 40%.<n>Our results suggest that arbitrage can be a powerful force in AI model markets with implications for model development, distillation, and deployment.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-23T18:00:14Z)
• Equity by Design: Fairness-Driven Recommendation in Heterogeneous Two-Sided Markets [44.675845572303324]
  We introduce Conditional Value-at-Risk as a consumer-side objective that compresses group-level utility disparities.<n>Our experiments reveal that the "free fairness" regime, where producer constraints impose no consumer cost, disappears in multi item settings.<n>Strikingly, moderate fairness constraints can improve business metrics by diversifying exposure away from saturated producers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-11T10:59:32Z)
• Balancing Profit and Fairness in Risk-Based Pricing Markets [7.991187769447732]
  We show that a regulator can realign private incentives with social objectives through a learned, interpretable tax schedule.<n>In two empirically calibrated markets, i.e., U.S. health-insurance and consumer-credit, our planner simultaneously raises demand-fairness by up to $16%$.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T18:24:08Z)
• Balancing Immediate Revenue and Future Off-Policy Evaluation in Coupon Allocation [3.4562366784858685]
  We propose a novel approach that combines a model-based revenue policy and a randomized exploration policy for data collection. Our framework enables flexible adjustment of the mixture ratio between these two policies to optimize the balance between short-term revenue and future policy improvement. We empirically verified the effectiveness of the proposed mixed policy using synthetic data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-06T02:04:17Z)
• Fairness Incentives in Response to Unfair Dynamic Pricing [7.991187769447732]
  We design a basic simulated economy, wherein we generate corporate taxation schedules geared to incentivizing firms towards adopting fair pricing behaviours. To cover a range of possible policy scenarios, we formulate our social planner's learning problem as a multi-armed bandit, a contextual bandit and as a full reinforcement learning (RL) problem. We find that social welfare improves on that of the fairness-agnostic baseline, and approaches that of the analytically optimal fairness-aware baseline for the multi-armed and contextual bandit settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-22T23:12:58Z)
• Computing Power and the Governance of Artificial Intelligence [51.967584623262674]
  Governments and companies have started to leverage compute as a means to govern AI. compute-based policies and technologies have the potential to assist in these areas, but there is significant variation in their readiness for implementation. naive or poorly scoped approaches to compute governance carry significant risks in areas like privacy, economic impacts, and centralization of power.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T21:10:21Z)
• Insurance pricing on price comparison websites via reinforcement learning [7.023335262537794]
  This paper introduces reinforcement learning framework that learns optimal pricing policy by integrating model-based and model-free methods. The paper also highlights the importance of evaluating pricing policies using an offline dataset in a consistent fashion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-14T04:44:56Z)
• Finding Regularized Competitive Equilibria of Heterogeneous Agent Macroeconomic Models with Reinforcement Learning [151.03738099494765]
  We study a heterogeneous agent macroeconomic model with an infinite number of households and firms competing in a labor market. We propose a data-driven reinforcement learning framework that finds the regularized competitive equilibrium of the model.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-24T17:16:27Z)
• Regulatory Instruments for Fair Personalized Pricing [34.986747852934634]
  We investigate the optimal pricing strategy of a profit-maximizing monopoly under both regulatory constraints and the impact of imposing them on consumer surplus, producer surplus, and social welfare. Our findings and insights shed light on regulatory policy design for the increasingly monopolized business in the digital era.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-02-09T03:07:08Z)
• Building a Foundation for Data-Driven, Interpretable, and Robust Policy Design using the AI Economist [67.08543240320756]
  We show that the AI Economist framework enables effective, flexible, and interpretable policy design using two-level reinforcement learning and data-driven simulations. We find that log-linear policies trained using RL significantly improve social welfare, based on both public health and economic outcomes, compared to past outcomes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-06T01:30:41Z)
• Fairness, Welfare, and Equity in Personalized Pricing [88.9134799076718]
  We study the interplay of fairness, welfare, and equity considerations in personalized pricing based on customer features. We show the potential benefits of personalized pricing in two settings: pricing subsidies for an elective vaccine, and the effects of personalized interest rates on downstream outcomes in microcredit.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-12-21T01:01:56Z)
• The AI Economist: Improving Equality and Productivity with AI-Driven Tax Policies [119.07163415116686]
  We train social planners that discover tax policies that can effectively trade-off economic equality and productivity. We present an economic simulation environment that features competitive pressures and market dynamics. We show that AI-driven tax policies improve the trade-off between equality and productivity by 16% over baseline policies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-28T06:57:18Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.