Entry, Accommodation and Exit. Why do supernormal profits persist in industries? Why doesn t entry of new firms wipe out such profits?
|
|
- Valerie Robinson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Entry, Accommodation and Exit. Why do supernormal profits persist in industries? Why doesn t entry of new firms wipe out such profits?
2 Harvard school of IO economists (Joe Bain): barriers to entry. Bain: a barrier to entry is anything that allows incumbents to enjoy strictly positive economic profits without threat of entry. These may include government regulation-permits, licenses, patents etc. - but we shall abstract from these.
3 Bain argued there are four major types of entry barriers: 1. Economies of Scale (fixed cost): If minimum efficient scale is large relative to market demand, there can only be few firms in the market (e.g., natural monopoly) & they may earn strictly positive profit without inviting entry.
4 2. Absolute Cost Advantages: of incumbents (superior technology, previous capital accumulation, firm specific learningetc.)
5 3. Product Differentiation Advantages: Incumbents may have patented product innovations & cornered important niches in the product space, dynamic investment in forming consumer loyalty...
6 4. Capital requirement: imperfect capital market, entrants may find it more difficult or costly to raise capital.
7 The Chicago school led by George Stigler approached entry barriers as simply being cost asymmetries between incumbent firms and outsiders (incumbents could charge price above average cost because outside firms had higher average cost curves).
8 Traditional model of entry barrier by incumbent firms: Limit pricing model by Sylos-Labini, Modigliani etc.: Incumbent prices low enough so that outside firms cannot enter.
9 This theory suffers from a credibility problem. Why would potential entrants believe that incumbents would hold on to those low prices if entry occurred? Not subgame perfect.
10 Modern version: Spence (1977) - Dixit (1979,1980) Model: Capacity choice used as a credible precommitment to flooding market & low prices.
11 Milgrom - Roberts (1982): asymmetric information between incumbents and potential entrants, - low prices signal private information about low profitability of potential entrants after entry.
12 Scale Economies as Entry Barrier: Contestability. The idea that scale economies act as entry barriers is best exemplified by the case of increasing returns to scale leading to a natural monopoly. If the average cost continually declines with output, no more than one firm can produce profitably in the industry (in a homogenous good market, if two firms sell output q 1,q 2 > 0 at price p that allows them to earn nonnegative profit, then one of the two firms can sell q 1 + q 2 at a price slightly lower than p and since average cost will be significantly lowered, earn higher profit).
13 Even if the AC curve is U-shaped and the minimum efficient scale is large, the number of firms that can produce profitably in the industry is small (natural oligopoly).
14 Baumol, Panzar and Willig (1982) argued that even though scale economies create entry barriers, - the threat of being replaced by potential entrants may act as a disciplining device on current incumbents and restrict the degree of market power. They developed the concept of contestable markets to capture this idea.
15 Consider a homogenous good industry with n symmetric firms each with cost function C(q),C(0) = 0. Note that this allows for fixed cost (that is not sunk) as long as lim q 0 C(q) > 0. Of these n firms, i =1,...m are incumbents and i = m +1,..., n are potential entrants, n>m. Market demand is given by D(p).
16 A sustainable industry configuration is a set of output {q 1,..., q m } and a price p charged by all firms such that: (i) market clears (demand = supply) (ii) incumbent firms make non-negative profits (iii) there does not exist any price p c p and output q c D(p c ) such that p c q c >C(q c ) (i.e., it is not possible for a potential entrant to make strictly positive profit by charging a lower price and selling some quantity).
17 A perfectly contestable market is one where every "equilibrium" generates a sustainable industry configuration.
18 Consider the case of natural monopoly with increasing returns to scale: C(q) = cq + f,c > 0,f >0 for q>0 = 0, for q =0.
19 Let π m =max q [(P (q) c)q] denote the gross monopoly profit and assume π m >f.
20 One can check that there is a unique sustainable industry configuration here where m =1and the incumbent charges the price ep = P (eq) where ep = c + f eq. This is identical to the solution obtained by average cost pricing regulation and is the constrained socially optimal solution when subsidies are not allowed. It is remarkable that this solution can emerge through market forces and threat of entry. Thus, regulation of industries with high scale economies may not be warranted.
21 The trouble is that for other demand and cost functions, theremaynotbeasustainableindustryconfiguration in a natural monopoly so that a constrained efficient industry structure may not be sustainable against entry. For example: U-shaped average cost curve where the demand curve intersects the AC curve slightly to the right of minimum efficient scale.
22 How to think of the strategic foundation of the contestable outcome? Easy to see that the outcome in the natural monopoly case requires that incumbent does not alter price after he learns about the output decision of potential entrant.
23 One game: firms choose prices first and then choose output/entry.
24 Problem: Prices usually adjust faster than output or entry decisions.
25 Sunk Cost/Capacity as Barrier to Entry: Spence-Dixit Model. Stackelberg- Firms enter market at different points of time - some enter early because of technological leadership - and can be thought of as incumbents. Others enter later. Early incumbents accumulate capacity and other forms of capital (including knowledge) over time that is "sunk" at any point of time. This allows firms to compete aggressively (for example, because marginal costs are low or production capacity is bigger).
26 So, when capacity or capital accumulation is observed by potential entrants, the latter take this into account in their calculation of post-entry profitability. Early entrants can prevent entry by using their first mover advantage and engaging in significant capital accumulation.
27 Model: Homogenous good market with demand D(p) =1 p. Production cost =0. 2 firms. Firm 1: Incumbent Firm 2: (Potential ) entrant. Entrant incurs fixed entry cost f > 0 if it enters the market. For the incumbent, the entry cost is sunk, does not affect the calculations and hence assumed to be zero.
28 Two stage game: Stage 1: Firm 1 sets its capacity K 1. Stage 2: Firm 2 (after observing firm 1 s choice) sets its own capacity K 2 (no entry equivalent to K 2 =0) After this both firms set a price that clears the market when they produce at full capacity viz., p =1 K 1 K 2 (p =0, if K 1 + K 2 1).
29 Profits: π 1 (K 1,K 2 ) = K 1 (1 K 1 K 2 ), if K 1 + K 2 1 = 0, if K 1 + K 2 1 π 2 (K 1,K 2 ) = K 2 (1 K 1 K 2 ) f, if K 2 > 0 and K 1 + = f, if K 2 > 0 and K 1 + K 2 1 = 0, if K 2 =0.
30 Definition: Entry is said to be blockaded if the entrant does not enter even though the incumbent s action is identical to what would be optimal (for the incumbent) if there was no threat of entry. Entry is said to be deterred if the entrant does not enter even because the incumbent chooses an action that would be suboptimal (for the incumbent) if there was no threat of entry. Entry is said to be accommodated if entry occurs and the incumbent adjusts his behavior reconciling to entry.
31 Blockaded entry: If there was no threat of entry, incumbent would choose K 1 at the monopoly output level i.e., solving which yields K m 1 = 1 2. max K 1 K 1 (1 K 1 )
32 Given this capacity of firm 1, the maximum profit that firm 2 can make by entering is given by: max K 2 = 1 16 f. K 2 ( 1 2 K 2) f Thus: entry is blockaded if f 1 16.
33 Entry Deterrence: If f< 16 1, entry will occur if the incumbent ignores the possibility of entry and sticks to monopoly capacity level. However, if it sets capacity at a sufficiently higher level, the entrant will find it unprofitable to enter.
34 What is the critical level of incumbent s capacity K b 1 such that entrant is indifferent between entering and not entering: max K 2 and this implies: K 2 (1 K b 1 K 2)=f K b 1 =1 2 qf. Note f< 1 16 implies Kb 1 =1 2 f> Obviously, K b 1 < 1.
35 Consider stage 2 subgame for f< If the capacity set in stage 1 is K 1 K1 b, then no entry occurs (i.e., K 2 =0). If, on the other hand, K 1 <K1 b, then entry occurs and firm 2 sets K 2 so as to: max K 2 (1 K 1 K 2 ) f K 2 which yields reaction function: K 2 (K 1 )= 1 K 1 2 which yields the following profit for firm 1: K 1 ( 1 K 1 ). 2
36 Now, consider the reduced form game in stage 1. Firm 1 s reduced form payoff: π 1 (K 1 ) = K 1 ( 1 K 1 ),K 1 <K1 b 2 = K 1 (1 K 1 ),K 1 K1 b. Observe that firm 1 will never set K 1 > K b 1 because K b 1 > 1 2. and π 1 K K1 >K b =1 2K 1 <
37 Therefore, the optimal capacity choice for firm 1 on [K1 b, 1] is K1 b yielding profit: K1 b q (1 Kb 1 qf(1 )=2 2 f) (1) This is the profit from deterring entry.
38 On [0,K1 b ), the profit maximizing capacity of firm 1 is given by setting: which yields: π 1 K K1 <K b =0 1 1 K 1 = 1 2 and profit: 1 8. (2) This is the profit from accommodating entry.
39 Entry deterring profit in (1) entry accommodating profit in(2)iff q q 2 f(1 2 f) 1 8. Let f be defined by q q 2 f(1 2 f) = 1 8. It can be checked that f (0, ).
40 Thus: for f f, entry is accommodated. For f (f, ), entry is deterred (and the incumbent holds large capacity equal to 1 2 f).
41 Note that when entry is deterred, the market appears to be a monopoly but market power is lower than in a monopoly. Potential entry restrains the exercise of market power.
42 Also, verify that when entry is accommodated, the subgame perfect equilibrium is K 1 = 1 2,K 2 = 1 4 leading to profits π 1 = 1 8,π2 = 16 1 f. Even if f =0,firm1 has a first mover s advantage. The version of the above sequential game where f =0 is called the Stackelberg game.
43 Stackelberg- Spence-Dixit sequential capacity choice by incumbent-entrant. Original Stackelberg game: sequential choice of quantities. Interpretation of payoff function? Why incumbent s first mover advantage in quantity? Why quantity has commitment value?
44 Spence-Dixit: interpret quantity as capacity. -the profit function after both choose capacity interpreted as reduced form payoff from short run product market competition (for example, price competition) given capacity levels - first mover advantage may arise as one firm (jncumbent) has earlier access to technology or quicker to act - capacities are sunk, difficult to change in the short run, and hence have commitment value.
45 The actual models of Spence and Dixit - short run competition after capacity choice is simultaneous quantity competition. This last stage may itself be interpreted as the reduced form of a two stage game where firms first set "selling capacities" (given production capacities) and then compete in prices. Also, they allow firms to add (but not reduce!) capacity in the product market competition stage.
46 Dixit (1980): Stage 1: Firm 1 sets capacity K 1 0 Stage 2: Firms 1 and 2 set capacities f K 1 K 1,K 2 0 as well outputs q 1 [0, f K 1 ],q 2 [0,K 2 ] simultaneously. Cost of acquiring each unit of capacity: c 0 Unit cost of production: c For the time being, ignore fixed cost of entry for firm 2.
47 Consider stage 2. Firm 2 sets equal capacity and output (K 2 = q 2 ) - his decision problem is equivalent to that of determining quantity of output at constant marginal cost c 0 + c. His reaction function (on the quantity space) is the standard Cournot reaction function of a firm that produces at marginal cost c 0 + c.
48 Firm 1 s problem in stage 2 is different. Ignoring previous sunk cost of acquiring capacity, he can produce any output up to K 1 at marginal cost c and output greater than K 1 at effective marginal cost c 0 + c. His reaction function is the Cournot reaction function of a firm that produces at unit cost c as long as that reaction output is below K 1 and then it jumps below to the reaction function of a firm that produces at unit cost c 0 + c. A jump discontinuity at K 1. Firm 1 much more aggressive than firm 2 (higher reaction function) till K 1.
49 If K 1 =0, the second stage game is just a simultaneous move game with a symmetric Nash equilibrium. By setting a high K 1 in stage 1, firm 1 pushes up his own reaction function in the second stage (by reducing current marginal cost) for a whole range of output so that the new Nash equilibrium is more favorable to firm 1. With fixed cost of entry, can be deterred.
50 One feature of the equilibrium in a linear demand model: no excess capacity - all capacity is used. This is generally true as long as demand is concave (downward sloping reaction functions in the quantity space). But if demand is convex and reaction functions are upward sloping - there may be excess capacity. Maskin (1986): uncertainty about demand or cost can lead to incumbent acquiring too much of capacity to deter entry and thus lead to excess capacity in certain states of nature.
51 Remark: Welfare analysis of entry deterrence is ambiguous. Incumbent s increase in capacity and output to deter entry - is welfare improving (as long as all capacity is used). If entry occurs (not deterred) after observing incumbent s capacity, then entrant s output and capacity is welfare improving. Fixed costs complicate.
52 Multiple incumbents: Public good problem in entry deterrence? If one incumbent deters entry by making a large investment, other incumbents benefit. Incentive to free ride underinvestment in the aggregate. Gilbert and Vives (1986) - contributing to entry deterrence is not quite like contributing to a pure public good. The benefit from entry deterrence also depends on each firm s own "contribution". Profit of an incumbent firm from entry deterrence depends on its own market share after entry is deterred which, in turn, creates competitive pressure to increase investment in capacity. overinvestment in entry deterrence.
53 Possibility of post-entry merger in bargaining for the buy-out of entrant by incumbent, entrant can certainly get whatever it would make if there was no merger after entry + part of the increase in industry profit associated with merger (monopolization). Thus, prospect of buy-out encourages entry. Of course, it also increases market concentration.
54 Note: entrant may acquire lot of capacity to increase bargaining strength (threat point) in the buyout phase. After buyout, incumbent may not use all of entrant s capacity (hold excess capacity).
55 Other forms of capital accumulation to deter entry: * Cost reduction (Process R&D) makes incumbent more aggressive competitor post entry.
56 *Learningbydoing.
57 * Developing clientele : More imperfect the consumers information and more important the costs of switching suppliers, the greater the clientele effect. Sometimes, overinvestment in clientele may not be an optimal way to prevent entry as the incumbent then has a large captive segment and is therefore less aggressive in price competition making entry more lucrative for entrant.
58 * Network effect among consumers: increases incentive to expand size of installed network base by incumbent firm.
59 * Exclusive franchises with retailers increases distribution costs for entrants
60 * Development of new product - specially when patented.
61 Strategic effect of pre-commitment on rival s actions: overinvestment vs. underinvestment. A simple reduced form three-stage model.
62 Stage 1: Firm 1 (incumbent) commits to a variable K 1 (call it "investment") Observed by firm 2. Stage 2: Firm 2 decides whether or not to enter. Stage 3: Firms in the industry engage in short run product market competition and each firm i in the market decides on variable x i.
63 If entry does not occur, firm 2 receives zero payoff and firm 1 s payoff is π 1m (K 1,x m 1 (K 1)) where x m 1 (K 1) is the monopoly level of variable x 1 (given investment K 1 ) that is set by firm 1 in stage 3.
64 If entry occurs, the profits for any choice of x 1,x 2 in stage 3 are π 1 (K 1,x 1,x 2 ) and π 2 (K 1,x 1,x 2 ) where π 2 is net of entry cost. Assume: π 1 (K 1,x 1,x 2 ),π 2 (K 1,x 1,x 2 ) are differentiable. Let {x 1 (K 1),x 2 (K 1)} be the Nash equilibrium of the stage 3 product market competition game, given K 1. It can be shown that x 1 (K 1),x 2 (K 1) are continuous in K 1. Assume: Given K 1,NE is unique, interior and "stable".
65 If K 1 is chosen such that π 2 (K 1,x 1 (K 1),x 2 (K 1)) 0 then entry does not occur. Indeed, if in equilibrium, firm 1 chooses K 1 so that π 2 (K 1,x 1 (K 1),x 2 (K 1)) < 0, prevention of entry is not a binding constraint of firm 1 s choice of investment entry is blockaded.
66 Entry deterred: π 2 (K 1,x 1 (K 1),x 2 (K 1)) = 0
67 Entry accommodated: π 2 (K 1,x 1 (K 1),x 2 (K 1)) > 0.
68 Assume: π 1m (K 1,x m 1 (K 1)),π 2 (K 1,x 1 (K 1),x 2 (K 1)) are strictly concave in K 1 and that x 1 (K 1),x 2 (K 1) are differentiable.
69 Consider situation of entry deterrence: π 2 (K 1,x 1 (K 1),x 2 (K 1)) = 0 (3) As x 2 (K 1) is the best response of firm2instage3to x 1 (K 1), FOCimplies: π 2 (K 1,x 1 (K 1),x 2 (K 1)) x 2 =0.
70 Taking total derivative with respect to K 1 of we have π 2 (K 1,x 1 (K 1),x 2 (K 1)) dπ 2 = π2 + π2 x 1 + π2 x 2 dk 1 K 1 x 1 K 1 x 2 K 1 = π2 + π2 x 1 K 1 x 1 K 1 = Direct Effect + Strategic Effect Direct Effect : Change in K 1 may directly change rival s profitability by changing demand for the latter s product or its cost of production (through spillovers) etc If K 1 is investment that affects only firm 1 s own cost or technology, then direct effect is zero. Strategic effect: change in K 1 changes firm 1 s ex post behavior and his choice in the product market which in turn affects firm 2 s profit.
71 These effects may run in opposite directions.
72 Taxonomy of business strategies: Top dog: be big or strong to look tough or aggressive Puppy dog: Be weak or small to look soft or inoffensive Lean and hungry look: Be weak or small to look tough or aggressive Fat cat: be big or strong to look soft or inoffensive
73 To deter entry, firm 1 wants to look tough. Investment makes firm 1 TOUGH if dπ2 dk 1 < 0 and in that case firm 1 should overinvest ("top dog" strategy). Investment makes firm1softif dπ2 dk 1 > 0 and in that case firm 1 should underinvest ("stay lean and hungry" strategy).
74 In Spence-Dixit kind of investment games, overinvestment (top dog) strategy to deter entry is optimal. But in investment in forming loyal clientele, underinvestment (stay lean and hungry) may be better to deter entry.
75 If entry deterrence is too costly, it is better for firm 1 to accommodate entry. Under accommodation, the incentive to invest is determined by the effect of K 1 on π 1 (K 1,x 1 (K 1),x 2 (K 1)). Observe: dπ 1 = π1 + π1 dx 1 + π1 dx 2 dk 1 K 1 x 1 dk 1 x 2 dk 1 = π1 + π1 dx 2 K 1 x 2 dk 1 = Direct Effect + Strategic Effect The direct effect exists even if firm 1 s investment is not observed by firm 2. The strategic effect is the effect of observing this investment on firm 2 s behavior in the product market. For the time being, let us focus on the strategic effect.
76 Assume: π1 x 2 and π2 x 1 havethesamesign (product market variables of both firms have the same nature). Now, dx 2 dk 1 = dx 2 dx 1 dx 1 dk 1 = R 0 2 (x 1 ) dx 1 dk 1
77 so that sign of the strategic effect: sign( π1 x 2 dx 2 dk 1 ) = sign( π1 x 2 )sign(r 0 2 (x 1 ) dx 1 dk 1 ) = sign( π2 x 1 )sign(r 0 2 (x 1 ) dx 1 dk 1 ) = sign( π2 x 1 dx 1 dk 1 )sign(r 0 2 ) Note π2 x 1 dx 1 dk 1 = strategic effect under entry deterrence. If R 0 2 > 0 (x 1 and x 2 are strategic complements), whether overinvestment or underinvestment is optimal under entry accommodation (focusing on strategic effect) follows the same prescription as under entry deterrence. If R 0 2 < 0 (x 1 and x 2 are strategic substitutes), overinvestment is optimal under entry accommodation if underinvestment is optimal under entry deterrence and viceversa.
78 π 2 Assume: K =0so that dπ2 1 dk in the entry deterrence 1 case depends only on the strategic effect.
79 Thelatterimpliesthatintheentrydeterrencecasewe only have two kinds of situation: (a) where the strategic effect is such that investment makes firm 1 look tough. (b) where the strategic effect is such that investment makes firm 1 look soft. strategic complements strategic substitutes (a) A : Puppy Dog D : Top Dog A : Top Dog D : Top Dog (b) A : Fat Cat D : Lean and Hungry A : Lean and Hungry D : Lean and Hungry In all cases, firm 1 tries to make firm 2 behave softly.
80 Inducement of Exit: Very similar to entry deterrence. Suppose there are two firms in the market. Fixedcostofstayingoninthemarket. Suppose firm 1 has a first mover advantage Can pre-emptively commit to an investment (a long run variable) K 1 which is observed by firm 2 Then, firm 2 decides whether or not to exit the market. If it does not exit, firms engage in short run product market competition setting x 1,x 2.
81 Exit occurs as long as π 2 (K 1,x 1 (K 1),x 2 (K 1)) 0 The analysis of entry prevention can be easily re-written as exit inducement.
82 Applications of the taxonomy of business strategies for entry deterrence & accommodation. In general, K 1 can be interpreted as any stage 1 (or, long run) variable (whether or not set by a firm) that is observable prior to product market competition between firms in the industry and taken as given, at that stage.
83 * Voluntary limitation of capacity: Puppy dog ploy.. A firm may choose to commit to small capacity in order to reduce price competition in the product market. Price competition : strategic complementarity. For example, entrant may commit to small capacity so as not to trigger aggressive price competition from large capacity incumbent.
84 * Product Differentiation: Puppy Dog ploy. Here, a firm commits to closeness to rival s product type or location, prior to price competition. Closer = more aggressive price competition (think of this as higher capital).
85 *LearningbyDoing: Two periods. One firm in period 1. Investment in capital = higher production in initial time period. Reduces marginal cost in the next period.
86 If second period market competition (if entry occurs) is in quantities (strategic substitutes), overinvestment is optimal i.e., top dog strategy. It reduces firm 2 s market share in period 2 (if it enters). This is independent of whether entry is deterred or accommodated.
87 What if product market competition is in prices? Top dog is still good for entry deterrence. But for accommodation, experience accumulation and lower marginal cost triggers lower price from rival. Makes overinvestment less worthwhile - underinvestment often optimal. Puppy Dog.
88 Spillovers: learning reduces marginal cost of rival too. This effect reduces the appeal of top dog strategy.
89 * Most favored customer clause (price protection). Guarantees current customers that they will be reimbursed any difference between current price and the lowest price upto a date in the future. Helps to commit to not reduce price and sustain current level of price in future. Interesting effect: Reduces price competition in the future and creates price-leadership!
90 Consider a two period differentiated good price duopoly. Demand in each period D i (p i,p j ). For simplicity, set cost =0. Firms set prices simultaneously each period. Upward sloping reaction function. No discounting.
91 If no price protection: Static NE (p 1,p 2 ) each period. outcome in
92 Suppose firm 1 unilaterally introduces price protection in period 1 and sets price ep 1 = p 1 + in period 1. Also, suppose consumers expect firm 1 not to reduce price infuture(sonoonebuysjusttogeta"reimbursement"): this will be self-fulfilling in equilibrium. Quantity sold by firm1inperiod1: eq 1 = D 1 ( ep 1,p 2 ).
93 Consider price competition in period 2. Firm 1 s second period profit at any pair of prices (p 1,p 2 ) charged by the firms in period 2: eπ 1 (p 1,p 2 ) = p 1 D 1 (p 1,p 2 ), if p 1 ep 1 = p 1 D 1 (p 1,p 2 ) eq 1 ( ep 1 p 1 ), if p 1 < ep 1. Observe that price protection has led to a downward shift of firm 1 s profit function - becomes weak to look inoffensive.
94 Indeed, for p 1 < ep 1, eπ 1 (p 1,p 2 )=p 1 (D 1 (p 1,p 2 )+eq 1 ) eq 1 ep 1 and maximizing this is equivalent to maximizing p 1 (D 1 (p 1,p 2 )+eq 1 ) whichisasiffirm 1 faced higher demand curve D 1 (p 1,p 2 )+ eq 1. Higher demand : price reaction higher.
95 So, firm 1 s reaction function in the modified price game in period 2 is the standard static reaction function (when firm 1 s payoff is p 1 D 1 (p 1,p 2 )) as long as his reaction price is ep 1. Let ep 2 be such that ep 1 = R 1 ( ep 2 ). For p 2 < ep 2, firm 1 s reaction jumps outward to the reaction function when this firm faces higher demand given by D 1 (p 1,p 2 )+eq 1. Jump discontinuity. NE: p 1 = ep 1,p 2 = R 2 ( ep 1 ). (As long as ep 1 is not too high relative to p 1 ). Stackelberg price leadership outcome.
96 Both firms charge higher prices than in the static outcome. Firm 1 loses some profit in period 1 as it is not charging its best response to p 2. If ep 1 is close to p 1, the loss in firm 1 s profit is of "second order" (as marginal profit offirm 1 at p 1 is zero). But firm 1 s gain by getting the leadership profitinperiod 2 is of first order. So, firm 1 gains in total profit by unilaterally deviating to price protection in period 1. Puppy dog strategy
97 * Multimarket oligopoly. Two separate markets. Market 1 is a duopoly. Firm1isamonopolistinmarket2. Firm 1 s production cost depends on sum of output sold in both markets. (Diseconomy of scope or decreasing returns to scale...).
98 All quantities determined simultaneously. If demand increases in market 2, firm 1 has incentive to sell more in market 2 - this raises its marginal cost of selling in market 1 - its reaction function in market 1 falls - yields market share to firm 2 in equilibrium. Bulow et al (1985): total profit offirm 1 may fall. Price competition + increasing returns to scale (economies of scope): similar outcome. Strategic disadvantage caused by puppy dog effect of increase in market demand.
99 * Quotas and Tariffs. Changes strategic positions of domestic and foreign firm. Export subsidy: makes domestic firm a top dog if quantity competition in foreign market. Quota, tariff: lowers reaction function of foreign firm in thedomesticmarket.
100 * Vertical contracts. Between manufacturers and retailers influence competition between downstream units.
101 *Tying. Whinston (1987). Two firms and two completely unrelated markets. Market A is monopolized by firm 1. Unit mass of identical consumers with unit demand and valuation v. Unit cost c. Market B: differentiated good price duopoly with firms 1 and 2.
102 Same consumers in both markets. Demand for firm i in market B: D i (p i,p j ) [0, 1]. Unit cost (of both firms) in market B: c 1 Question: Does firm 1 have an incentive to tie (or bundle) products A & B?
103 First, consider the following game: Firms simultaneously decide on their prices and at the same time, firm 1 decides whether to bundle the two products or two sell them separately.
104 Given any p 2, firm 1 can never gain strictly by tying the goods. To see this, suppose firm 1 ties the goods and sells the bundle at some price P 1. For a consumer who buys this bundle, the marginal price paid for good B is P 1 v. So, quantity sold by firm 1 is D 1 (P 1 v, p 2 ).
105 The profit is (P 1 c c 1 )D 1 (P 1 v, p 2 ) If firm 1 sells the good separately and prices good A at v and good B at P 1 v, hisprofit is (v c)+(p 1 v c 1 )D 1 (P 1 v, p 2 ) (v c)d 1 (P 1 v, p 2 )+(P 1 v c 1 )D 1 (P 1 v, p 2 ) = (P 1 c c 1 )D 1 (P 1 v, p 2 ) with strict inequality unless D 1 (P 1 v, p 2 )=1. So, tying hurts firm 1 as it reduces its degrees of freedom in pricing.
106 Under bundling, if we set ep 1 = P 1 v (the effective marginal price of buying good B for consumers), then firm 1 maximizes with respect to ep 1. ( ep 1 (c 1 (v c)))d 1 ( ep 1,p 2 ) When selling separately and setting its price in market B, firm 1 sets price p 1 for good B so as to maximize: (p 1 c 1 )D 1 (p 1,p 2 ) Under bundling the firm is effectively selling good B at lower marginal cost under bundling - a unit of loss of sales in market B costs v c to firm 1 in Market A in terms of lost profit - so its reaction is more aggressive in market B under bundling, then when selling separately.
107 Reaction function of firm 1 more aggressive (like a cost reduction).
108 Next, consider the following two stage game: Firm 1 first decides whether to bundle or sell separately. Then, firms set prices in both markets simultaneously. [If goods are complements, bundling may be equivalent to making firm 1 s product in market A incompatible with firm 2 s product in market B: a technological decision.]
109 Here bundling intensifies price competition in stage 2 and hurts both firms. Better to follow puppy dog strategy of no bundling. But it still may be optimal to bundle for deterring entry.
110 * Systems of Complementary Products and Choice of Compatibility Ex. computer hardware and software; cameras, lenses and films; music systems... Products in each system can be purchased individually but they cannot be consumed as a system ("mix and match") unless they are compatible. A manufacturer that makes its system incompatible with other systems effectively bundles the components in his system.
111 Simple model: Two firms. Each firm produces two complementary products: X and Y. A unit each of X and Y together constitute a system.
112 Product differentiation: Consumers are uniformly located on a unit-square on the x-y space. Firms products are located at the two diametric ends of the square: Firm 1 at (0,0) and Firm 2 at (1,1). A consumer located at (x, y) incurs psychological cost tx + ty when buying both components from firm 1 and t(1 x)+t(1 y) when buying both components from firm 2. If she buys component X from firm 1 and Y from firm 2, her psychological cost is tx + t(1 y) etc...
113 Suppose unit cost is same for both firms and both products.
114 Under incompatibility: each firm offers a bundle of X and Yandtheconsumerlocatedat(x, y) compares with P 1 + tx + ty P 2 + t(1 x)+t(1 y) If both systems are sold and market is fully covered, using the standard indifference condition, we can figure out the demand for each firm s system and the symmetric NE. In this NE, the square is split along the diagonal between the systems sold by the two firms.
115 Under compatibility, components are sold separately at prices (p X 1,pY 1,pX 2,pY 2 ) and consumer can mix and match. There are four potential systems that the consumer can choose from - product variety increases. If she buys system with compenent X from firm 1 and Y from firm 2, her total cost is: p X 1 + py 2 + tx + t(1 y) and so on. Consumer chooses one with minimum total cost. If all four systems are sold and market is fully covered, then from indifference condition, we can get the linear demand function for each component of each firm as function of all four prices.
116 Solve for symmetric NE. In this NE, the square is split into four square quadrants, the southwest quadrant buys both components from firm 1, southeast buys X from firm 2 and Y from firm 1 etc Consumers in the NW and SE quadrants buy systems by using mix-n-match that are closer to their taste than under incompatibility.
117 Compatibility: ** Raises demand - products better suited to taste incentive to charge higher prices.
118 ** Softens price competition (unbundled products). When firm 1 cuts price of component X 1 : - under incompatibility, it increases only the demand for its own bundled system (X 1 Y 1 ) as that is the only system that includes component X 1 - under compatibility, it also increases the demand for the system X 1 Y 2 whose benefit accruestofirm 2. This externality reduces the incentive of firm to cut price. Price competition less aggressive. So both firms gain under compatibility.
Strategic Substitutes and Complements. MGT 525 Competitive Strategy Kevin Williams
Strategic Substitutes and Complements MGT 525 Competitive Strategy Kevin Williams 1 Course Outline Fundamentals of Strategy Static Competition Shrimp Game Strategic Complements and Substitutes Price Competition
More informationBest-response functions, best-response curves. Strategic substitutes, strategic complements. Quantity competition, price competition
Strategic Competition: An overview The economics of industry studying activities within an industry. Basic concepts from game theory Competition in the short run Best-response functions, best-response
More informationManagerial Economics & Business Strategy Chapter 9. Basic Oligopoly Models
Managerial Economics & Business Strategy Chapter 9 Basic Oligopoly Models Overview I. Conditions for Oligopoly? II. Role of Strategic Interdependence III. Profit Maximization in Four Oligopoly Settings
More informationChapter 14 TRADITIONAL MODELS OF IMPERFECT COMPETITION. Copyright 2005 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning. All rights reserved.
Chapter 14 TRADITIONAL MODELS OF IMPERFECT COMPETITION Copyright 2005 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning. All rights reserved. 1 Pricing Under Homogeneous Oligopoly We will assume that the
More informationEcon Microeconomic Analysis and Policy
ECON 500 Microeconomic Theory Econ 500 - Microeconomic Analysis and Policy Monopoly Monopoly A monopoly is a single firm that serves an entire market and faces the market demand curve for its output. Unlike
More informationOligopoly: How do firms behave when there are only a few competitors? These firms produce all or most of their industry s output.
Topic 8 Chapter 13 Oligopoly and Monopolistic Competition Econ 203 Topic 8 page 1 Oligopoly: How do firms behave when there are only a few competitors? These firms produce all or most of their industry
More informationIndustrial Organization
Industrial Organization Markets and Strategies 2nd edition Paul Belleflamme Université CatholiquedeLouvain Martin Peitz University of Mannheim University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom
More informationIndustrial. Organization. Markets and Strategies. 2nd edition. Paul Belleflamme Universite Catholique de Louvain. Martin Peitz University of Mannheim
Industrial Organization Markets and Strategies 2nd edition Paul Belleflamme Universite Catholique de Louvain Martin Peitz University of Mannheim CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS Contents List offigures xiii
More informationRenting or Selling A Strategic Choice in a Durable Good Market
Renting or Selling A Strategic Choice in a Durable Good Market Manas Paul Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research Gen. Vaidya Marg Goregaon (East) Bombay 400 065. Sougata Poddar Department of Economics
More informationThe Quality of Complex Systems and Industry Structure
Forthcoming in W. Lehr (ed.), Quality and Reliability of Telecommunications Infrastructure. Lawrence Erlbaum. Hillsdale, NJ: 1995. The Quality of Complex Systems and Industry Structure by Nicholas Economides
More informationIndustrial Organization 07
Industrial Organization 07 Strategic Behaviors, Entry, Exit Marc Bourreau Telecom ParisTech Marc Bourreau (TPT) Lecture 07: Strategic behaviors, entry, exit 1 / 56 Outline 1 Notion of entry barrier Legal
More informationECN 3103 INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION
ECN 3103 INDUSTRIAL ORGANISATION 5. Game Theory Mr. Sydney Armstrong Lecturer 1 The University of Guyana 1 Semester 1, 2016 OUR PLAN Analyze Strategic price and Quantity Competition (Noncooperative Oligopolies)
More information! lecture 7:! competition and collusion!!
! lecture 7:! competition and collusion!! the story so far Natural monopoly: Definitions (Ideal) Pricing solutions Regulation in practice Regulation under asymmetric information Competition policy: Introduction
More informationINTERMEDIATE MICROECONOMICS LECTURE 13 - MONOPOLISTIC COMPETITION AND OLIGOPOLY. Monopolistic Competition
13-1 INTERMEDIATE MICROECONOMICS LECTURE 13 - MONOPOLISTIC COMPETITION AND OLIGOPOLY Monopolistic Competition Pure monopoly and perfect competition are rare in the real world. Most real-world industries
More informationEconomics of Strategy Fifth Edition. Besanko, Dranove, Shanley, and Schaefer. Chapter 11. Entry and Exit. Copyright 2010 John Wiley Sons, Inc.
Economics of Strategy Fifth Edition Besanko, Dranove, Shanley, and Schaefer Chapter 11 Entry and Exit Slides by: Richard Ponarul, California State University, Chico Copyright 2010 John Wiley Sons, Inc.
More information14.01 Principles of Microeconomics, Fall 2007 Chia-Hui Chen November 7, Lecture 22
Monopoly. Principles of Microeconomics, Fall Chia-Hui Chen November, Lecture Monopoly Outline. Chap : Monopoly. Chap : Shift in Demand and Effect of Tax Monopoly The monopolist is the single supply-side
More informationChapter 6. Game Theory Two
6.8 Repeated Games A game that is played only once is called a one-shot game. Repeated games are games that are played over and over again. Repeated Game = A game in which actions are taken and payoffs
More informationLesson-28. Perfect Competition. Economists in general recognize four major types of market structures (plus a larger number of subtypes):
Lesson-28 Perfect Competition Economists in general recognize four major types of market structures (plus a larger number of subtypes): Perfect Competition Monopoly Oligopoly Monopolistic competition Market
More informationChapter 13. Game Theory. Gaming and Strategic Decisions. Noncooperative v. Cooperative Games
Chapter 13 Game Theory Gaming and Strategic Decisions Game theory tries to determine optimal strategy for each player Strategy is a rule or plan of action for playing the game Optimal strategy for a player
More informationCompetition Policy Monopoly Competition Other. Bundling. Patrick Legros
Bundling Patrick Legros / 33 Introduction Sale of two or more products in fixed (or variable) combination Related to tie-in-sales (can buy 2 only if already bought ) hardware-software, printer-ink, tv-channels,
More informationEntry Deterrence in Durable-Goods Monopoly
Entry Deterrence in Durable-Goods Monopoly Heidrun C. Hoppe University of Hamburg In Ho Lee University of Southampton January 14, 2000 Abstract Some industries support Schumpeter s notion of creative destruction
More informationEdexcel (B) Economics A-level
Edexcel (B) Economics A-level Theme 4: Making Markets Work 4.1 Competition and Market Power 4.1.1 Spectrum of competition Notes Characteristics of monopoly, oligopoly, imperfect and perfect competition
More informationSolutions to Final Exam
Solutions to Final Exam AEC 504 - Summer 2007 Fundamentals of Economics c 2007 Alexander Barinov 1 Veni, vidi, vici (30 points) Two firms with constant marginal costs serve two markets for two different
More informationChapter 11 Entry and Exit
Chapter 11 Entry and Exit Prof. Jepsen ECO 610 Lecture 7 December 12, 2012 John Wiley and Sons Outline Barriers to entry Barriers to exit Entry-deterring strategies Exit-promoting strategies Forms of Entry
More informationUC Berkeley Haas School of Business Economic Analysis for Business Decisions (EWMBA 201A) Fall 2013
UC Berkeley Haas School of Business Economic Analysis for Business Decisions (EWMBA 201A) Fall 2013 Pricing with market power and oligopolistic markets (PR 11.1-11.4 and 12.2-12.5) Module 4 Sep. 28, 2013
More informationOverview 11/6/2014. Herfindahl Hirshman index of market concentration ...
Overview Market Structure and Competition Chapter 3 explores different types of market structures. Markets differ on two important dimensions: the number of firms, and the nature of product differentiation.
More informationEconomics Bulletin, 2012, Vol. 32 No. 4 pp Introduction
Economics ulletin, 0, Vol. 3 No. 4 pp. 899-907. Introduction Considerable research has been done to investigate whether selling different products in a bundle is anti-competitive and whether it generates
More informationEco 300 Intermediate Micro
Eco 300 Intermediate Micro Instructor: Amalia Jerison Office Hours: T 12:00-1:00, Th 12:00-1:00, and by appointment BA 127A, aj4575@albany.edu A. Jerison (BA 127A) Eco 300 Spring 2010 1 / 61 Monopoly Market
More informationKey words: Franchise Fees, Competition, Double Marginalization, Collusion
The Role of Franchise Fees and Manufacturers Collusion DongJoon Lee (Nagoya University of Commerce and Business, Japan) Sanghoen Han (Nagoya University of Commerce and Business, Japan) Abstract: This paper
More informationLecture 11 Imperfect Competition
Lecture 11 Imperfect Competition Business 5017 Managerial Economics Kam Yu Fall 2013 Outline 1 Introduction 2 Monopolistic Competition 3 Oligopoly Modelling Reality The Stackelberg Leadership Model Collusion
More informationChapter 9: Static Games and Cournot Competition
Chapter 9: Static Games and Cournot Competition Learning Objectives: Students should learn to:. The student will understand the ideas of strategic interdependence and reasoning strategically and be able
More informationECONOMICS. Paper 3 : Fundamentals of Microeconomic Theory Module 28 : Non collusive and Collusive model
Subject Paper No and Title Module No and Title Module Tag 3 : Fundamentals of Microeconomic Theory 28 : Non collusive and Collusive model ECO_P3_M28 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Learning Outcomes 2. Introduction
More informationPreface. Chapter 1 Basic Tools Used in Understanding Microeconomics. 1.1 Economic Models
Preface Chapter 1 Basic Tools Used in Understanding Microeconomics 1.1 Economic Models 1.1.1 Positive and Normative Analysis 1.1.2 The Market Economy Model 1.1.3 Types of Economic Problems 1.2 Mathematics
More information29/02/2016. Market structure II- Other types of imperfect competition. What Is Monopolistic Competition? OTHER TYPES OF IMPERFECT COMPETITION
Market structure II- Other types of imperfect competition OTHER TYPES OF IMPERFECT COMPETITION Characteristics of Monopolistic Competition Monopolistic competition is a market structure in which many firms
More informationECO 610: Lecture 9. Oligopoly, Rivalry, and Strategic Behavior
ECO 610: Lecture 9 Oligopoly, Rivalry, and Strategic Behavior Oligopoly, Rivalry, and Strategic Behavior: Outline Porter s Five Forces Model: when does internal rivalry get interesting? Oligopoly: definition
More informationSection I (20 questions; 1 mark each)
Foundation Course in Managerial Economics- Solution Set- 1 Final Examination Marks- 100 Section I (20 questions; 1 mark each) 1. Which of the following statements is not true? a. Societies face an important
More informationAdvanced Microeconomic Theory. Chapter 7: Monopoly
Advanced Microeconomic Theory Chapter 7: Monopoly Outline Barriers to Entry Profit Maximization under Monopoly Welfare Loss of Monopoly Multiplant Monopolist Price Discrimination Advertising in Monopoly
More informationPractice Test for Final
Name: Class: Date: Practice Test for Final True/False Indicate whether the statement is true or false. 1. A public good or service can be consumed by paying and nonpaying customers alike. 2. An example
More informationINDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, WITH APPLICATIONS TO E-COMMERCE An Option for MSc Economics and MSc E-Commerce Autumn Term 2003
School of Economics, Mathematics and Statistics INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, WITH APPLICATIONS TO E-COMMERCE An Option for MSc Economics and MSc E-Commerce Autumn Term 2003 1. Strategic Interaction and Oligopoly
More informationStrategic Corporate Social Responsibility
Strategic Corporate Social Responsibility Lisa Planer-Friedrich Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg Marco Sahm Otto-Friedrich-Universität Bamberg and CESifo This Version: June 15, 2015 Abstract We examine
More informationGame Theory & Firms. Jacob LaRiviere & Justin Rao April 20, 2016 Econ 404, Spring 2016
Game Theory & Firms Jacob LaRiviere & Justin Rao April 20, 2016 Econ 404, Spring 2016 What is Game Theory? Game Theory Intuitive Definition: Theory of strategic interaction Technical Definition: Account
More informationECON 230D2-002 Mid-term 1. Student Number MULTIPLE CHOICE. Choose the one alternative that best completes the statement or answers the question.
ECON 230D2-002 Mid-term 1 Name Student Number MULTIPLE CHOICE. Choose the one alternative that best completes the statement or answers the question. Scenario 12.3: Suppose a stream is discovered whose
More informationCHAPTER NINE MONOPOLY
CHAPTER NINE MONOPOLY This chapter examines how a market controlled by a single producer behaves. What price will a monopolist charge for his output? How much will he produce? The basic characteristics
More informationLecture 2: Market Structure I (Perfect Competition and Monopoly)
Lecture 2: Market Structure I (Perfect Competition and Monopoly) EC 105. Industrial Organization Matt Shum HSS, California Institute of Technology October 1, 2012 EC 105. Industrial Organization ( Matt
More informationTowards an effects based approach to price discrimination. Anne Perrot «Pros and Cons 2005» Stockholm
Towards an effects based approach to price discrimination Anne Perrot «Pros and Cons 2005» Stockholm Introduction Price discrimination = individualisation of prices for economists, unfairness for lawyers.
More informationLecture 6 Game Plan. Strategic moves continued. Dynamic Pricing Game. Strategic substitutes and complements. how to be credible
Lecture 6 Game Plan Strategic moves continued how to be credible Dynamic Pricing Game Strategic substitutes and complements commitments to be tough vs. soft puppy dog ploy, lean & hungry look, etc. 1 Trucking
More informationMarket structure 1: Perfect Competition The perfectly competitive firm is a price taker: it cannot influence the price that is paid for its product.
Market structure 1: Perfect Competition The perfectly competitive firm is a price taker: it cannot influence the price that is paid for its product. This arises due to consumers indifference between the
More informationBundling and Quality Disclosure in a Bayesian Game
Journal of Game Theory 2015, 4(1): 13-17 DO: 10.5923/j.jgt.20150401.03 undling and Quality Disclosure in a ayesian Game Qing Hu Graduate School of Economics, Kobe University, Kobe, Japan Abstract We analyze
More informationECON 115. Industrial Organization
ECON 115 Industrial Organization 1. The Take-home Final (Final Essay) 2. What have we learned in Industrial Organization? What are the major takeaways? The Final: write a short essay about a firm s or
More information7 The Optimum of Monopoly, Price Discrimination
Microeconomics I - Lecture #7, March 31, 2009 7 The Optimum of Monopoly, Price Discrimination 7.1 Monopoly Up to now we have analyzed the behavior of a competitive industry, a market structure that is
More information11. Oligopoly. Literature: Pindyck and Rubinfeld, Chapter 12 Varian, Chapter 27
11. Oligopoly Literature: Pindyck and Rubinfeld, Chapter 12 Varian, Chapter 27 04.07.2017 Prof. Dr. Kerstin Schneider Chair of Public Economics and Business Taxation Microeconomics Chapter 11 Slide 1 Chapter
More informationEconomic Profit AC lowest AC point higher Q & lower P MC AC C C M D=AR E E MR D=AR Q SR MR Q LR Q LR Q
Week 8. Between Competition & Monopoly 1. Monopolistic Competition refers to a market in which products are heterogeneous, but which is otherwise the same as a market that is perfectly competitive. Therefore,
More informationChapter 13. Oligopoly and Monopolistic Competition
Chapter 13 Oligopoly and Monopolistic Competition Chapter Outline Some Specific Oligopoly Models : Cournot, Bertrand and Stackelberg Competition When There are Increasing Returns to Scale Monopolistic
More informationReverse Pricing and Revenue Sharing in a Vertical Market
Reverse Pricing and Revenue Sharing in a Vertical Market Qihong Liu Jie Shuai January 18, 2014 Abstract Advancing in information technology has empowered firms with unprecedented flexibility when interacting
More informationThe Analysis of Competitive Markets
C H A P T E R 12 The Analysis of Competitive Markets Prepared by: Fernando & Yvonn Quijano CHAPTER 12 OUTLINE 12.1 Monopolistic Competition 12.2 Oligopoly 12.3 Price Competition 12.4 Competition versus
More informationVolume 30, Issue 3. Specialization through Cross-licensing in a Multi-product Stackelberg Duopoly
Volume 30, Issue 3 Specialization through Cross-licensing in a Multi-product Stackelberg Duopoly Luigi Filippini Università Cattolica, Milano Abstract We argue that cross-licensing is a device to establish
More informationThe "competition" in monopolistically competitive markets is most likely a result of having many sellers in the market.
Chapter 16 Monopolistic Competition TRUE/FALSE 1. The "competition" in monopolistically competitive markets is most likely a result of having many sellers in the market. ANS: T 2. The "monopoly" in monopolistically
More informationSearch markets: Introduction
Search markets: Introduction Caltech Ec106 (Caltech) Search Feb 2010 1 / 16 Why are prices for the same item so different across stores? (see evidence) A puzzle considering basic economic theory: review
More informationTheory of Consumer Behavior First, we need to define the agents' goals and limitations (if any) in their ability to achieve those goals.
Theory of Consumer Behavior First, we need to define the agents' goals and limitations (if any) in their ability to achieve those goals. We will deal with a particular set of assumptions, but we can modify
More informationChapter 6. Competition
Chapter 6 Competition Copyright 2014 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education. 1-1 Chapter 6 The goal of this
More informationCollusion. Sotiris Georganas. February Sotiris Georganas () Collusion February / 31
Collusion Sotiris Georganas February 2012 Sotiris Georganas () Collusion February 2012 1 / 31 Outline 1 Cartels 2 The incentive for cartel formation The scope for collusion in the Cournot model 3 Game
More informationThe Economics of Industry Exam Review. June 14, 2002
The Economics of Industry Exam Review June 14, 2002 1 Notes on Key Articles and Models 1.1 Maskin and Tirole - Dynamic Oligopoly In Edgeworth cycle theory, firms undercut each other successively to increase
More informationWorking Paper No Can By-product Lobbying Firms Compete? Paul Pecorino
Working Paper No. -2-3 Can By-product Lobbying Firms Compete? Paul Pecorino February 2 Can By-product Lobbying Firms Compete? Paul Pecorino* Department of Economics, Finance and Legal Studies Box 87224
More informationMicroeconomics (Oligopoly & Game, Ch 12)
Microeconomics (Oligopoly & Game, Ch 12) Lecture 17-18, (Minor 2 coverage until Lecture 18) Mar 16 & 20, 2017 CHAPTER 12 OUTLINE 12.1 Monopolistic Competition 12.2 Oligopoly 12.3 Price Competition 12.4
More informationChapter 15 Oligopoly
Goldwasser AP Microeconomics Chapter 15 Oligopoly BEFORE YOU READ THE CHAPTER Summary This chapter explores oligopoly, a market structure characterized by a few firms producing a product that mayor may
More informationSTRATEGIC OUTSOURCING WITH TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
CDE August 0 STRATEGIC OUTSOURCING WITH TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER TARUN KABIRAJ Email: tarunkabiraj@hotmail.com Economic Research Unit Indian Statistical Institute 0 B. T. Road, Kolkata UDAY BHANU SINHA Email:
More informationLecture on Competition 22 January 2003
Lecture on Competition 22 January 2003 Q: How common is Perfect Competition? A: It s not. It s RARE. I. Characteristics of PERFECT COMPETITION: Price Taker, Homogeneous Good, Perfect Info., No Transactions
More informationSyllabus item: 57 Weight: 3
1.5 Theory of the firm and its market structures - Monopoly Syllabus item: 57 Weight: 3 Main idea 1 Monopoly: - Only one firm producing the product (Firm = industry) - Barriers to entry or exit exists,
More informationIndustrial Organization- micro : Price discrimination in oligopoly
Industrial Organization- micro 3 2018: Price discrimination in oligopoly Price discrimination is a mechanism whereby a monopolist can effectively shift surplus from the consumer sector. With perfect price
More informationCHAPTER 8: SECTION 1 A Perfectly Competitive Market
CHAPTER 8: SECTION 1 A Perfectly Competitive Market Four Types of Markets A market structure is the setting in which a seller finds itself. Market structures are defined by their characteristics. Those
More informationTYING, UPGRADES, AND SWITCHING COSTS
TYING, UPGRADES, AND SWITCHING COSTS by Dennis W. Carlton Booth School of Business University of Chicago 5807 South WoodLawn Chicago, IL 60637 and NBER (773) 702-6694, dennis.carlton@chicagogsb.edu and
More informationConsumer Conformity and Vanity in Vertically Differentiated Markets
Consumer Conformity and Vanity in Vertically Differentiated Markets Hend Ghazzai Assistant Professor College of Business and Economics Qatar University P.O. Box 2713 Doha, Qatar. Abstract Consumers' choice
More informationPrice competition in a differentiated products duopoly under network effects
Price competition in a differentiated products duopoly under network effects Krina Griva Nikolaos Vettas February 005 Abstract We examine price competition under product-specific network effects, in a
More informationDo not open this exam until told to do so. Solution
Do not open this exam until told to do so. Department of Economics College of Social and Applied Human Sciences K. Annen, Fall 003 Final (Version): Intermediate Microeconomics (ECON30) Solution Final (Version
More informationProduct bundling and tying in competition
Product bundling and tying in competition Eugen Kováč (CERGE-EI and Bonn University) June 2006 Abstract This paper explores tying in the situation where a multi-product firm without monopoly power competes
More informationA2 Economics Essential Glossary
tutor2u A2 Economics Essential Glossary Author: Geoff Riley (Eton College) Tutor2u Limited 2004 All Rights Reserved tutor2u is a registered trade mark of Tutor2u Limited 2 Abnormal profit Abnormal profit
More informationDynamic Games and First and Second Movers
9781405176323_4_011.qxd 10/19/07 8:11 PM Page 245 11 Dynamic Games and First and Second Movers Since its introduction in the 1970s, Boeing s 416-seat 747 jet aircraft has dominated the jumbo jet market.
More informationLecture 22. Oligopoly & Monopolistic Competition
Lecture 22. Oligopoly & Monopolistic Competition Course Evaluations on Thursday: Be sure to bring laptop, smartphone, or tablet with browser, so that you can complete your evaluation in class. Oligopoly
More informationAn Economic Approach to Article 82
An Economic Approach to Article 82 Many steps Report of the EAGCP, June 2005 Jordi Gual, Martin Hellwig, Anne Perrot, Michele Polo, Patrick Rey, Klaus Schmidt, Rune Stenbacka. Draft paper of the Commission,
More informationAnswer both questions. (Question II has a multi-page text for analysis.)
Industrial Organization Field Exam, August 2008 Answer both questions. (Question II has a multi-page text for analysis.) Question I: Consider an industry with M upstream firms and N downstream firms. All
More informationWORKING PAPER SERIES Judo Economics in Markets with Asymmetric Firms Daniel Cracau Working Paper No. 2/2013
WORKING PAPER SERIES Impressum ( 5 TMG) Herausgeber: Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg Fakultät für Wirtschaftswissenschaft Der Dekan Verantwortlich für diese Ausgabe: Otto-von-Guericke-Universität
More information2013 sample MC CH 15. Name: Class: Date: Multiple Choice Identify the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question.
Class: Date: 2013 sample MC CH 15 Multiple Choice Identify the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question. 1. Monopolistic competition is identified by a. many firms producing a slightly
More informationRecall from last time. Econ 410: Micro Theory. Cournot Equilibrium. The plan for today. Comparing Cournot, Stackelberg, and Bertrand Equilibria
Slide Slide 3 Recall from last time A Nash Equilibrium occurs when: Econ 40: Micro Theory Comparing Cournot, Stackelberg, and Bertrand Equilibria Monday, December 3 rd, 007 Each firm s action is a best
More informationECON December 4, 2008 Exam 3
Name Portion of ID# Multiple Choice: Identify the letter of the choice that best completes the statement or answers the question. 1. A fundamental source of monopoly market power arises from a. perfectly
More informationInternational Journal of Industrial Organization
International Journal Int. J. Ind. of Industrial Organ. 28 Organization (2010) 350 354 28 (2010) 350 354 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect International Journal of Industrial Organization ournal
More information14.1 Comparison of Market Structures
14.1 Comparison of Structures Chapter 14 Oligopoly 14-2 14.2 Cartels Cartel in Korea Oligopolistic firms have an incentive to collude, coordinate setting their prices or quantities, so as to increase their
More informationContents in Brief. Preface
Contents in Brief Preface Page v PART 1 INTRODUCTION 1 Chapter 1 Nature and Scope of Managerial Economics and Finance 3 Chapter 2 Equations, Graphs and Optimisation Techniques 21 Chapter 3 Demand, Supply
More informationPrice Discrimination: Exercises Part 2
Price Discrimination: Exercises Part Sotiris Georganas Royal Holloway University of London Problem 1 An economics journal is considering offering a new service which will send articles to readers by email.
More informationAdvance Selling, Competition, and Brand Substitutability
Advance Selling, Competition, and Brand Substitutability Oksana Loginova October 27, 2016 Abstract This paper studies the impact of competition on the benefits of advance selling. I construct a two-period
More informationChapter 10 Pure Monopoly
Chapter 10 Pure Monopoly Multiple Choice Questions 1. Pure monopoly means: A. any market in which the demand curve to the firm is downsloping. B. a standardized product being produced by many firms. C.
More informationChapter 13 MODELS OF MONOPOLY. Copyright 2005 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning. All rights reserved.
Chapter 13 MODELS OF MONOPOLY Copyright 2005 by South-Western, a division of Thomson Learning. All rights reserved. 1 Monopoly A monopoly is a single supplier to a market This firm may choose to produce
More informationDo Firms Always Choose Excess Capacity? Abstract
Do Firms Always Choose Excess Capacity? Akira Nishimori Aichi University Hikaru Ogawa Nagoya University Abstract We analyze the capacity choice of firms in a long run mixed oligopoly market, in which firms
More informationEconomic Analysis for Business Decisions Multiple Choice Questions Unit-2: Demand Analysis
Economic Analysis for Business Decisions Multiple Choice Questions Unit-2: Demand Analysis 1. The law of demand states that an increase in the price of a good: a. Increases the supply of that good. b.
More informationIntra-industry trade, environmental policies and innovations: The Porter- Hypothesis revisited
Intra-industry trade, environmental policies and innovations: The Porter- Hypothesis revisited Gerhard Clemenz March 2012 Abstract: According to the Porter Hypothesis (PH) stricter environmental regulations
More informationCommerce 295 Midterm Answers
Commerce 295 Midterm Answers October 27, 2010 PART I MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS Each question has one correct response. Please circle the letter in front of the correct response for each question. There
More informationMergers in the energy sector. Xavier Vives IESE Business School
Mergers in the energy sector IESE Business School Outline Trends. The quest for size Characteristics of electricity markets Horizontal merger analysis Vertical merger and foreclosure Remedies Market power
More informationIntroduction. Learning Objectives. Chapter 25. Monopoly
Chapter 25 Monopoly Introduction Economists have found that when nations governments proclaim that a single church denomination represents the official state religion, the church loses attendance equal
More informationUse the following to answer question 4:
Homework Chapter 11: Name: Due Date: Wednesday, December 4 at the beginning of class. Please mark your answers on a Scantron. It is late if your Scantron is not complete when I ask for it at 9:35. Get
More informationAssortative Matching > 0. (2)
Assortative Matching In a marriage market the competition for spouse leads to sorting of mates by characteristics such as wealth, education, and other characteristics. Positive assortative matching refers
More informationJournal of Industrial Organization Education
Journal of Industrial Organization Education Volume 3, Issue 1 2008 Article 1 Capacity-Constrained Monopoly Kathy Baylis, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign Jeffrey M. Perloff, University of California,
More information