IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/canjec/v51y2018i2p510-527.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How the source of the entrant's advantage limits entry‐deterring tying

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth S. Corts

Abstract

I revisit a simple model of entry‐deterring tying—example 1 from Whinston's (1990) seminal paper—but allow the potential entrant to have either a cost advantage or a willingness‐to‐pay (WTP) advantage relative to the incumbent. I show that, compared to the usual case in which the potential entrant is cost‐advantaged, tying is less effective against an entrant with a WTP advantage because an entrant with a large WTP advantage may be able to induce the buyer to buy both the tied bundle and the entrant's product. I also show that tying but failing to deter entry can be less costly when facing an entrant with a WTP advantage than when facing an entrant with a cost advantage. For a firm facing uncertainty about, for example, the entrant's entry costs, this makes tying a more attractive entry deterrence strategy against a WTP‐advantaged entrant. These results shed light on the important policy question of which markets are most likely to be susceptible to entry‐deterring tying. Comment le type d'avantage de l'entrant potentiel peut limiter la stratégie de dissuasion à l'entrée par attachement à un autre produit. L'auteur réexamine un modèle simple d'attachement à un autre produit comme mécanisme de dissuasion à l'entrée – Exemple 1 tiré du texte fondateur de Whinston (1990) – mais considère que l'entrant potentiel peut avoir soit un avantage de coût soit un avantage de volonté de payer (VDP) par rapport à celui qui est déjà en place. On montre que, comparé au cas usuel dans lequel l'entrant potentiel a un avantage de coût, l'attachement à un autre produit est un moyen moins effectif quand l'entrant potentiel a un grand avantage de VDP, et peut être capable d'inciter l'acheteur à acquérir à la fois l'ensemble que constitue le bien de l'offreur en place et le produit attaché ainsi que le bien de l'entrant. On montre qu'attacher un autre produit au produit original mais ne réussissant pas à décourager l'entrant peut être moins coûteux quand on fait face à un entrant qui a un avantage VDP que quand on fait face à un avantage de coût. Pour une firme faisant face à de l'incertitude à savoir , par exemple, quels sont les prix de l'entrée pour le nouvel arrivant, l'attachement à un autre produit est une stratégie de dissuasion plus attrayante contre un nouvel entrant dont l'avantage est de type VDP. Ces résultats jettent de la lumière sur l'importante question de politique à savoir quels marchés sont les plus susceptibles de se prêter à l'attachement en tant de moyen de dissuasion de l'entrée.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth S. Corts, 2018. "How the source of the entrant's advantage limits entry‐deterring tying," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(2), pages 510-527, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:canjec:v:51:y:2018:i:2:p:510-527
    DOI: 10.1111/caje.12329
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/caje.12329
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/caje.12329?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Martin, Stephen, 1999. "Strategic and welfare implications of bundling," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 371-376, March.
    2. Whinston, Michael D, 1990. "Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 837-859, September.
    3. Catherine D. Wolfram, 1999. "Measuring Duopoly Power in the British Electricity Spot Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(4), pages 805-826, September.
    4. Dennis W. Carlton & Joshua S. Gans & Michael Waldman, 2010. "Why Tie a Product Consumers Do Not Use?," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 85-105, August.
    5. Frank Mathewson & Ralph A. Winter, 1997. "Tying as a Response to Demand Uncertainty," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(3), pages 566-583, Autumn.
    6. Choi, Jay Pil & Stefanadis, Christodoulos, 2001. "Tying, Investment, and the Dynamic Leverage Theory," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 52-71, Spring.
    7. Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 2002. "The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(2), pages 194-220, Summer.
    8. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-890, July.
    9. Barry Nalebuff, 2004. "Bundling as an Entry Barrier," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 159-187.
    10. Peitz, Martin, 2008. "Bundling may blockade entry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 41-58, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Gayer, Amit & Shy, Oz, 2016. "A welfare evaluation of tying strategies," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 623-637.
    2. Angelika Endres-Fröhlich & Joachim Heinzel, 2022. "The Impact of Product Qualities on Downstream Bundling in a Distribution Channel," Working Papers Dissertations 90, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    3. Andrea Mantovani, 2013. "The Strategic Effect of Bundling: A New Perspective," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 42(1), pages 25-43, February.
    4. Andrea Mantovani & Jan Vandekerckhove, 2016. "The Strategic Interplay Between Bundling and Merging in Complementary Markets," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(1), pages 19-36, January.
    5. Baranes, Edmond & Podesta, Marion & Poudou, Jean-Christophe, 2016. "Mixed bundling may hinder collusion," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 638-658.
    6. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899.
    7. Angelika Endres-Fröhlich & Burkhard Hehenkamp & Joachim Heinzel, 2022. "The Impact of Product Differentiation on Retail Bundling in a Vertical Market," Working Papers Dissertations 91, Paderborn University, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics.
    8. Jihui Chen & Qiang Fu, 2017. "Do exclusivity arrangements harm consumers?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 311-339, June.
    9. Andrea Greppi & Domenico Menicucci, 2021. "On Bundling and Entry Deterrence," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 58(4), pages 561-581, June.
    10. Halmenschlager, Christine & Mantovani, Andrea, 2017. "On the private and social desirability of mixed bundling in complementary markets with cost savings," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 45-59.
    11. Akifumi Ishihara & Noriyuki Yanagawa, 2013. "Dark Sides of Patent Pools with Compulsory Independent Licensing," CARF F-Series CARF-F-318, Center for Advanced Research in Finance, Faculty of Economics, The University of Tokyo.
    12. Alessandro Avenali & Anna D’Annunzio & Pierfrancesco Reverberi, 2013. "Bundling, Competition and Quality Investment: A Welfare Analysis," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 43(3), pages 221-241, November.
    13. Joao Macieira & Pedro Pereira & Joao Vareda, 2013. "Bundling Incentives in Markets with Product Complementarities: The Case of Triple-Play," Working Papers 13-15, NET Institute.
    14. Nakamura, A., 2011. "Estimating switching costs after introducing Fixed-Mobile Convergence in Japan," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 59-71, March.
    15. Dennis W. Carlton & Joshua S. Gans & Michael Waldman, 2010. "Why Tie a Product Consumers Do Not Use?," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 85-105, August.
    16. Etro, Federico, 2016. "Research in economics and industrial organization," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 511-517.
    17. Ishihara, Akifumi & Yanagawa, Noriyuki, 2018. "Dark sides of patent pools with independent licensing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 1-34.
    18. Cooper, James C. & Froeb, Luke M. & O'Brien, Dan & Vita, Michael G., 2005. "Vertical antitrust policy as a problem of inference," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(7-8), pages 639-664, September.
    19. Andrea Mantovani & Jan Vandekerckhove, 2016. "The Strategic Interplay Between Bundling and Merging in Complementary Markets," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(1), pages 19-36, January.
    20. Jeon, Doh-Shin & Menicucci, Domenico, 2009. "Bundling and Competition for Slots: On the Portfolio Effects of Bundling," IDEI Working Papers 574, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse, revised Jul 2011.

    More about this item

    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:wly:canjec:v:51:y:2018:i:2:p:510-527. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5982 .

    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.