Asymmetric Collusion with Growing Demand
Tóm tắt
We characterize collusion sustainability in markets where demand growth triggers the entry of a new firm whose efficiency may be different from the efficiency of the incumbents. We find that the profit-sharing rule that firms adopt to divide the cartel profit after entry is a key determinant of the incentives for collusion (before and after entry). In particular, if the incumbents and the entrant are very asymmetric, collusion without side-payments cannot be sustained. However, if firms divide joint profits through bargaining and are sufficiently patient, collusion is sustainable even if firms are very asymmetric.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Abreu D (1986) Extremal equilibria of oligopolistic supergames. J Econ Theory 39(1):191–225
Bae H (1987) A price-setting supergame between two heterogeneous firms. Eur Econ Rev 31(6):1159–1171
Bain JS (1948) Output quotas in imperfect cartels. Q J Econ 62(4):617–622
Benoit J-P, Krishna V (1987) Dynamic duopoly: prices and quantities. Rev Econ Stud 54(1):23–35
Binmore K, Rubinstein A, Wolinsky A (1986) The Nash bargaining solution in economic modelling. RAND J Econ 17(2):176–188
Bos I, Harrington JE (2010) Endogenous cartel formation with heterogeneous firms. RAND J Econ 41(1):92–117
Brock WA, Scheinkman JA (1985) Price setting supergames with capacity constraints. Rev Econ Stud 52(3):371–382
Capuano C (2002) Demand growth, entry and collusion sustainability. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei Working Paper 62
Compte O, Jenny F, Rey P (2002) Capacity constraints, mergers and collusion. Eur Econ Rev 46(1):1–29
Correia-da-Silva J, Pinho J, Vasconcelos H (2013) Cartel stability and profits under different reactions to entry in markets with growing demand. FEP Working Papers 487
Davidson C, Deneckere R (1984) Horizontal mergers and collusive behavior. Int J Ind Organ 2(2): 117–132
Davies S, Olczak M (2008) Tacit versus overt collusion firm asymmetries and numbers: what’s the evidence? ESRC Centre for Competition Policy Working Paper, (08–32)
Deneckere R, Davidson C (1985) Incentives to form coalitions with Bertrand competition. RAND J Econ 473–486
Donsimoni M-P (1985) Stable heterogeneous cartels. Int J Ind Organ 3(4):451–467
Donsimoni M-P, Economides NS, Polemarchakis HM (1986) Stable cartels. Int Econ Rev 2(27):317–327
Escrihuela-Villar M (2009) A note on cartel stability and endogenous sequencing with tacit collusion. J Econ 96(2):137–147
Escrihuela-Villar M (2011) Does cartel leadership facilitate collusion. J Econ Resour 16:85–95
Etro F (2008) Stackelberg competition with endogenous entry. Econ J 118(532):1670–1697
Feuerstein S (2005) Collusion in industrial economics - a survey. J Ind Compet Trade 5(3–4):163–198
Friedman JW (1971) A non-cooperative equilibrium for supergames. Rev Econ Stud 38(1):1–12
Ganslandt M, Persson L, Vasconcelos H (2012) Endogenous mergers and collusion in asymmetric market structures. Economica 79(316):766–791
Grout P, Sonderegger S (2005) Predicting cartels. Office of Fair Trading, United Kingdom
Harrington JE Jr (1991) The determination of price and output quotas in a heterogeneous cartel. Int Econ Rev 32(4):767–792
Ivaldi M, Jullien B, Rey P, Seabright P, Tirole J (2003) The economics of tacit collusion. IDEI Working Paper 186
Knittel CR, Lepore JJ (2010) Tacit collusion in the presence of cyclical demand and endogenous capacity levels. Int J Ind Organ 28(2):131–144
Lambson VE (1995) Optimal penal codes in nearly symmetric Bertrand supergames with capacity constraints. J Math Econ 24(1):1–22
Mason CF, Phillips OR (2002) In support of trigger strategies: experimental evidence from two-person noncooperative games. J Econ Manag Strategy 11(4):685–716
Miklós-Thal J (2011) Optimal collusion under cost asymmetry. Econ Theory 46(1):99–125
Motta M (2000) EC merger policy and the Airtours case. Eur Compet Law Rev 21(4):199–207
Motta M (2004) Competition policy: theory and practice. Cambridge University Press
Motta M, Polo M, Vasconcelos H (2003) Merger remedies in the european union: an overview. In: Leveque F, Shelanski H (eds) Merger remedies in American and european union competition law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton
Nash J (1953) Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica J Econ Soc 21(1):128–140
Neven DJ, Nuttall R, Seabright P (1993) Merger in daylight: the economics and politics of European merger control. Centre for Economic Policy Research, London
O’Brien D (2002) The welfare effects of third degree price discrimination in intermediate good markets: the base of bargaining. FTC Bureau of Economics Working Paper 245
Olczak M (2009) Unilateral versus coordinated effects: comparing the impact on consumer welfare of alternative merger outcomes. ESRC Centre for Competition Policy Working Paper
Osborne MJ, Pitchik C (1983) Profit-sharing in a collusive industry. Eur Econ Rev 22(1):59–74
Patinkin D (1947) Multiple-plant firms, cartels, and imperfect competition. Q J Econ 61(2):173–205
Perry MK, Porter RH (1985) Oligopoly and the incentive for horizontal merger. Am Econ Rev 75(1):219–227
Phillips OR, Menkhaus DJ, Thurow JN (2011) The small firm in a quantity choosing game: some experimental evidence. Rev Ind Organ 38(2):191–207
Roth A (1979) Axiomatic models of bargaining. Springer-Verlag, Berlin
Rubinstein A (1982) Perfect equilibrium in a bargaining model. Econometrica J Econ Soc 50(1):97–109
Salant SW, Switzer S, Reynolds RJ (1983) Losses from horizontal merger: the effects of an exogenous change in industry structure on Cournot-Nash equilibrium. Q J Econ 98(2):185–199
Schmalensee R (1987) Competitive advantage and collusive optima. Int J Ind Organ 5(4):351–367
Shaffer S (1995) Stable cartels with a Cournot fringe. South Econ J 61(3):744–754
Stigler GJ (1950) Monopoly and oligopoly by merger. Am Econ Rev 40(2):23–34
Vasconcelos H (2005) Tacit collusion, cost asymmetries, and mergers. RAND J Econ 36(1):39–62
Vasconcelos H (2008) Sustaining collusion in growing markets. J Econ Manag Strategy 17(4):973–1010