{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01692524682651622, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.120689655172414, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Additional Transportation Costs benefit Consumer Surplus and Social Welfare in a Bilateral Duopoly

This paper examines the location selection by retailers in a bilateral duopoly. We suppose that the location is unconstraint. We compare two cases. One case is that each retailer incurs its transportation costs in order to purchase goods from its manufacturer. Another case is that it does not pay the transportation costs. Our conclusions are two. One is that both retailers locate inside the city, when retailers incur the transportation costs. The other is that consumer surplus and social welfare is larger under retailers’ paying transportation costs than under retailers’ no-paying transportation costs.