IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/joecth/v62y2016i1d10.1007_s00199-015-0905-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Oligopolistic vs. monopolistic competition: Do intersectoral effects matter?

Author

Listed:
  • Claude d’Aspremont

    (Université Catholique de Louvain)

  • Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira

    (Université de Strasbourg
    Católica Lisbon School of Business and Economics)

Abstract

Recent extensions of the standard Dixit–Stiglitz (Am Econ Rev 67:297–308, 1977) model, that go beyond the CES sub-utility assumption while maintaining monopolistic competition, have mainly emphasized the role of intrasectoral substitutability. We argue that introducing oligopolistic competition can be an alternative extension, still tractable, allowing to restore the role of intersectoral substitutability and reinforcing the general equilibrium dimension of the model. For this purpose, we define a comprehensive concept of oligopolistic equilibrium to give account of a large set of competition regimes with varying competitive toughness. For two particular regimes, price competition and quantity competition, we show how, with strategic interactions, pro-competitive or anti-competitive effects now depend on the intersectoral elasticity of substitution as compared to the intrasectoral elasticity of substitution.

Suggested Citation

  • Claude d’Aspremont & Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira, 2016. "Oligopolistic vs. monopolistic competition: Do intersectoral effects matter?," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 62(1), pages 299-324, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:62:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s00199-015-0905-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s00199-015-0905-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00199-015-0905-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s00199-015-0905-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Claude d'Aspremont & Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira & Louis-André Gérard-Varet, 1990. "On Monopolistic Competition and Involuntary Unemployment," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 105(4), pages 895-919.
    2. Claude d'Aspremont & Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira & Louis-André Gérard-Varet, 2007. "Competition For Market Share Or For Market Size: Oligopolistic Equilibria With Varying Competitive Toughness," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 48(3), pages 761-784, August.
    3. Marc J. Melitz & Giancarlo I. P. Ottaviano, 2021. "Market Size, Trade, and Productivity," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Firms and Workers in a Globalized World Larger Markets, Tougher Competition, chapter 4, pages 87-108, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    4. Evgeny Zhelobodko & Sergey Kokovin & Mathieu Parenti & Jacques‐François Thisse, 2012. "Monopolistic Competition: Beyond the Constant Elasticity of Substitution," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(6), pages 2765-2784, November.
    5. Feenstra, Robert C., 2003. "A homothetic utility function for monopolistic competition models, without constant price elasticity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 79-86, January.
    6. Andrew Atkeson & Ariel Burstein, 2008. "Pricing-to-Market, Trade Costs, and International Relative Prices," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 98(5), pages 1998-2031, December.
    7. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 297-308, June.
    8. Bertoletti, Paolo & Epifani, Paolo, 2014. "Monopolistic competition: CES redux?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 227-238.
    9. Blackorby, Charles & Russell, R Robert, 1989. "Will the Real Elasticity of Substitution Please Stand Up? (A Comparison of the Allen/Uzawa and Morishima Elasticities)," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 882-888, September.
    10. d'Aspremont, Claude & Dos Santos Ferreira, Rodolphe, 2010. "Oligopolistic competition as a common agency game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 21-33, September.
    11. Parenti, Mathieu & Ushchev, Philip & Thisse, Jacques-François, 2017. "Toward a theory of monopolistic competition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 86-115.
    12. Krugman, Paul R., 1979. "Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 469-479, November.
    13. Yang, Xiaokai & Heijdra, Ben J, 1993. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(1), pages 295-301, March.
    14. Marc J. Melitz & Gianmarco I. P. Ottaviano, 2008. "Market Size, Trade, and Productivity (DOI:10.111/j.1467-937x.2007.00463.x)," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 75(3), pages 985-985.
    15. Claude D'Aspremont & Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira & Louis‐André Gérard‐Varet, 2010. "Strategic R&D investment, competitive toughness and growth," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 6(3), pages 273-295, September.
    16. Bresnahan, Timothy F., 1989. "Empirical studies of industries with market power," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 17, pages 1011-1057, Elsevier.
    17. Federico Etro, 2014. "The Theory Of Endogenous Market Structures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 804-830, December.
    18. d'Aspremont, Claude & Dos Santos Ferreira, Rodolphe & Gerard-Varet, Louis-Andre, 1989. "Unemployment in an Extended Cournot Oligopoly Model," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 490-505, July.
    19. d'Aspremont, Claude & Dos Santos Ferreira, Rodolphe & Gerard-Varet, Louis-Andre, 1996. "On the Dixit-Stiglitz Model of Monopolistic Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 623-629, June.
    20. Paolo Bertoletti & Federico Etro, 2014. "A General Theory of Endogenous Market Structures," DEM Working Papers Series 081, University of Pavia, Department of Economics and Management.
    21. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    22. Behrens, Kristian & Murata, Yasusada, 2007. "General equilibrium models of monopolistic competition: A new approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 776-787, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. d’Aspremont, Claude & Dos Santos Ferreira, Rodolphe, 2017. "The Dixit–Stiglitz economy with a ‘small group’ of firms: A simple and robust equilibrium markup formula," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(4), pages 729-739.
    2. Paolo Bertoletti & Federico Etro, 2022. "Monopolistic competition, as you like it," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 60(1), pages 293-319, January.
    3. Kristian Behrens & Sergey Kichko & Philip Ushchev & Sergei Kichko, 2018. "Intersectoral Markup Divergence," CESifo Working Paper Series 6965, CESifo.
    4. Heid, Benedikt & Stähler, Frank, 2024. "Structural gravity and the gains from trade under imperfect competition: Quantifying the effects of the European Single Market," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    5. Etro, Federico, 2023. "Technologies for endogenous growth," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    6. d’Aspremont, Claude & Dos Santos Ferreira, Rodolphe, 2020. "Exploiting separability in a multisectoral model of oligopolistic competition," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 51-59.
    7. Kenji Fujiwara, 2018. "The Effects of Entry under the Coexistence of Oligopolistic and Monopolistic Competition," Discussion Paper Series 174, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised Feb 2018.
    8. Makoto Yano & Takashi Komatsubara, 2018. "Price competition or price leadership," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 66(4), pages 1023-1057, December.
    9. Fujiwara Kenji, 2020. "The Effects of Entry when Monopolistic Competition and Oligopoly Coexist," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 20(2), pages 1-11, June.
    10. Vera Ivanova & Philip Ushchev, 2019. "Product Differentiation, Competitive Toughness, and Intertemporal Substitution," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(3), pages 1244-1269, July.
    11. Ronald R. Kumar & Peter J. Stauvermann, 2020. "Economic and Social Sustainability: The Influence of Oligopolies on Inequality and Growth," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(22), pages 1-23, November.
    12. Etro, Federico, 2017. "Research in economics and monopolistic competition," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(4), pages 645-649.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Parenti, Mathieu & Ushchev, Philip & Thisse, Jacques-François, 2017. "Toward a theory of monopolistic competition," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 86-115.
    2. d’Aspremont, Claude & Dos Santos Ferreira, Rodolphe, 2017. "The Dixit–Stiglitz economy with a ‘small group’ of firms: A simple and robust equilibrium markup formula," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(4), pages 729-739.
    3. Mrázová, Monika & Neary, J. Peter, 2020. "IO for exports(s)," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    4. Monika Mrázová & J. Peter Neary, 2017. "Not So Demanding: Demand Structure and Firm Behavior," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(12), pages 3835-3874, December.
    5. Etro, Federico, 2017. "Research in economics and monopolistic competition," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(4), pages 645-649.
    6. Jacques-François Thisse & Philip Ushchev, 2018. "Monopolistic competition without apology," Chapters, in: Luis C. Corchón & Marco A. Marini (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory and Industrial Organization, Volume I, chapter 5, pages 93-136, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    7. d’Aspremont, Claude & Dos Santos Ferreira, Rodolphe, 2020. "Exploiting separability in a multisectoral model of oligopolistic competition," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 51-59.
    8. Nocco, Antonella & Ottaviano, Gianmarco I.P. & Salto, Matteo, 2019. "Geography, competition, and optimal multilateral trade policy," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 145-161.
    9. Fally, Thibault, 2022. "Generalized separability and integrability: Consumer demand with a price aggregator," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    10. Boucekkine, Raouf & Latzer, Hélène & Parenti, Mathieu, 2017. "Variable markups in the long-run: A generalization of preferences in growth models," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 80-86.
    11. Bertoletti, Paolo & Epifani, Paolo, 2014. "Monopolistic competition: CES redux?," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 227-238.
    12. Vera Ivanova & Philip Ushchev, 2019. "Product Differentiation, Competitive Toughness, and Intertemporal Substitution," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 121(3), pages 1244-1269, July.
    13. Martin Alfaro, 2022. "The microeconomics of new trade models," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 1539-1565, August.
    14. Evgeny Zhelobodko & Sergey Kokovin & Mathieu Parenti & Jacques-François Thisse, 2011. "Monopolistic competition in general equilibrium: Beyond the CES," PSE Working Papers halshs-00566431, HAL.
    15. Heiland, Inga & Kohler, Wilhelm, 2022. "Heterogeneous workers, trade, and migration," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    16. Feenstra, Robert C., 2018. "Restoring the product variety and pro-competitive gains from trade with heterogeneous firms and bounded productivity," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 16-27.
    17. Ushchev, Philip & Zenou, Yves, 2018. "Price competition in product variety networks," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 226-247.
    18. Ziran Ding, 2022. "Firm heterogeneity, variable markups, and multinational production: A review from trade policy perspective," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(5), pages 1311-1357, December.
    19. Robert C. Feenstra, 2010. "Measuring the gains from trade under monopolistic competition," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 43(1), pages 1-28, February.
    20. Melitz, Marc J. & Redding, Stephen J., 2014. "Heterogeneous Firms and Trade," Handbook of International Economics, in: Gopinath, G. & Helpman, . & Rogoff, K. (ed.), Handbook of International Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 0, pages 1-54, Elsevier.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Oligopolistic and monopolistic competition; Intra- and intersectoral substitutability; Pro- and anti-competitive effects;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • D51 - Microeconomics - - General Equilibrium and Disequilibrium - - - Exchange and Production Economies
    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:joecth:v:62:y:2016:i:1:d:10.1007_s00199-015-0905-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.