Ricardian or Monopoly Rents? The Perspective of Potential Entrants
AbstractTests of the efficiency and market power hypotheses have focused on incumbents’ profitability. The current study examines the issue from the perspective of potential entrants. A key premise of the paper, which follows from the efficiency hypothesis, is that incumbents’ Ricardian rents (resulting from efficiency) usually do not induce entry. However, incumbents’ monopoly rents should attract entry, ceteris paribus. The entry response to adjusted and unadjusted profitability measures is compared. The difference between the measures represents Ricardian rents, according to the efficiency hypothesis, and monopoly rents, according to the market power hypothesis. The results, generally, favor the market power hypothesis.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Eastern Economic Association in its journal Eastern Economic Journal.
Volume (Year): 32 (2006)
Issue (Month): 1 (Winter)
Contact details of provider:
Postal: c/o Dr. Alexandre Olbrecht, The Anisfield School of Business 205, Ramapo College, 505 Ramapo Valley Road, Ramapo, New Jersey 07430, USA
Phone: (201) 684-7346
Web page: http://www.ramapo.edu/eea/journal.html
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Gilbert, Richard, 1988.
"Mobility Barriers and the Value of Incumbency,"
Department of Economics, Working Paper Series
qt52q9j63w, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Clarke, Roger & Davies, Stephen & Waterson, Michael, 1984. "The Profitability-Concentration Relation: Market Power or Efficiency?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(4), pages 435-50, June.
- Paul Milgrom & John Roberts, 1998.
"Limit Pricing and Entry Under Incomplete Information: An Equilibrium Analysis,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
245, David K. Levine.
- Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1982. "Limit Pricing and Entry under Incomplete Information: An Equilibrium Analysis," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(2), pages 443-59, March.
- Kamien, Morton I & Schwartz, Nancy L, 1971. "Limit Pricing and Uncertain Entry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(3), pages 441-54, May.
- Steven A. Matthews & Leonard J. Mirman, 1981.
"Equilibrium Limit Pricing: The Effects of Private Information and Stochastic Demand,"
494, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Matthews, Steven A & Mirman, Leonard J, 1983. "Equilibrium Limit Pricing: The Effects of Private Information and Stochastic Demand," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 51(4), pages 981-96, July.
- Schmalensee, Richard, 1987. "Collusion versus Differential Efficiency: Testing Alternative Hypotheses," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(4), pages 399-425, June.
- Martin, Stephen, 1988. "Market Power and/or Efficiency?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 70(2), pages 331-35, May.
- S.A. Lippman & R.P. Rumelt, 1982. "Uncertain Imitability: An Analysis of Interfirm Differences in Efficiency under Competition," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 13(2), pages 418-438, Autumn.
- Mancke, Richard B, 1974. "Causes of Interfirm Profitability Differences: A New Interpretation of the Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 88(2), pages 181-93, May.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Victor Matheson, College of the Holy Cross).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.