IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/uconnr/25181.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Oligopolistic "Agreement" and/or "Superiority"?: New Findings from New Methodologies and Data

Author

Listed:
  • Jakubson, George
  • Jeong, Kap-Young
  • Kim, Donghun
  • Masson, Robert T.

Abstract

The influential Scherer and Ross text (1990, p. 411) states that the "main question" in empirical industrial organization in the latter part of the twentieth century is Bain's (1951) "collusion" or "agreement" hypothesis versus Demsetz's (1973) "superior firm" hypothesis. Prior to the Federal Trade Commission Line-of-Business (LOB) studies the "contending schools were deadlocked," but these studies led to a win being declared for the superiority hypothesis by Scherer writing with seven other LOB researchers (1987). These studies found that the effect of concentration on profits disappeared when controlling for firm shares. As many economists agreed, merger policy shifted away from a focus on agreement to applying a "unilateral effects" (non-cooperative Nash) approach. We develop a nine year panel LOB data set for Korea. We perform three types of tests, all of which support both hypotheses, but which show that the agreement effect overwhelmingly dominates the superiority effect in pricing. First we examine a secondary implication of the superiority model: profit aggregation should imply that if share is negatively related to firm profits, so should concentration be negatively related to industry profits. Instead, we find that for those industries with a negative share relationship, the concentration profits relationship is positive and virtually identical to the relationship for the full sample in both within and between panel tests. Next we introduce a commonly cited model in the empirical literature. This model is cited to motivate the proposition that both share and concentration should have an effect on firm profits. However, authors who cite this model then typically use an ad hoc specification rather than estimating this as a structural model. We develop our structural model and define latent variables to distinguish between domestic and export price cost margins (PCMs) and to identify firm "conjectures" as they impact the domestic PCM. Demand elasticities are captured in non-linear industry fixed effects. We show that concentration plays an overwhelming role in determining firm PCMs, with firm share playing a far smaller role. We additionally exploit the structural characteristics of the model to deal with the possibility that deviations between marginal costs and average costs might be driving the results. For supporting evidence we construct a new latent variable identifying the domestic/export price ratio. We find a strong "within" relationship between concentration and the domestic/export price ratio, again firm shares play a weaker role. Finally, we discuss why our results differ from the FTC-LOB studies and provide evidence that would suggest that the FTC studies' conclusions are biased due to the 1973 removal of price controls and energy crisis, the "stagflation" of the 1970s, and the use of national firm shares along with geographically weighted averages of concentration ratios.

Suggested Citation

  • Jakubson, George & Jeong, Kap-Young & Kim, Donghun & Masson, Robert T., 2004. "Oligopolistic "Agreement" and/or "Superiority"?: New Findings from New Methodologies and Data," Research Reports 25181, University of Connecticut, Food Marketing Policy Center.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:uconnr:25181
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.25181
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/25181/files/rr040081.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.25181?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. Ian Domowitz & R. Glenn Hubbard & Bruce C. Petersen, 1986. "Business Cycles and the Relationship Between Concentration and Price-Cost Margins," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(1), pages 1-17, Spring.
    2. 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 435-450, June.
    3. Ghosal, Vivek, 2000. "Product market competition and the industry price-cost markup fluctuations:: role of energy price and monetary changes," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 415-444, April.
    4. Demsetz, Harold, 1973. "Industry Structure, Market Rivalry, and Public Policy," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 1-9, April.
    5. Hay, George A & Kelley, Daniel, 1974. "An Empirical Survey of Price Fixing Conspiracies," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(1), pages 13-38, April.
    6. Bradburd, Ralph M & Ross, David R, 1988. "A General Measure of Multidimensional Inequality," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 50(4), pages 429-433, November.
    7. Gary Chamberlain, 1980. "Analysis of Covariance with Qualitative Data," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 47(1), pages 225-238.
    8. Fisher, Franklin M & McGowan, John J, 1983. "On the Misuse of Accounting Rates of Return to Infer Monopoly Profits," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 73(1), pages 82-97, March.
    9. Feinberg, Robert M, 1985. ""Sales-at-Risk": A Test of the Mutual Forebearance Theory of Conglomerate Behavior," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(2), pages 225-241, April.
    10. Dixit, Avinash K, 1986. "Comparative Statics for Oligopoly," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 27(1), pages 107-122, February.
    11. 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.
    12. Jakubson, George, 1988. "The Sensitivity of Labor-Supply Parameter Estimates to Unobserved Individual Effects: Fixed- and Random-Effects Estimates in a Nonlinear Model Using Panel Data," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 6(3), pages 302-329, July.
    13. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), 1989. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 2, number 2.
    14. Geroski, P. A. & Masson, R. T. & Shaanan, S., 1987. "The dynamics of market structure," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 93-100, March.
    15. Domowitz, Ian & Hubbard, R Glenn & Petersen, Bruce C, 1986. "The Intertemporal Stability of the Concentration-Margins Relationship," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(1), pages 13-34, September.
    16. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), 1989. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    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. George Jakubson & Kap-Young Jeong & Donghun Kim & Robert T. Masson, 2004. "Oligopolistic 'Agreement' and/or 'Superiority'?: New Findings from New Methodologies and Data," Food Marketing Policy Center Research Reports 081, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    2. Micha Gisser & Raymond Sauer, 2000. "The Aggregate Relation between Profits and Concentration is Consistent with Cournot Behavior," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 16(3), pages 229-246, May.
    3. Richard Schmalensee, 2012. "“On a Level with Dentists?” Reflections on the Evolution of Industrial Organization," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 41(3), pages 157-179, November.
    4. Schmalensee, Richard L., 1987. "Empirical studies of rivalrous behavior," Working papers 1990-87., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    5. Perloff, Jeffrey M, 1991. "Econometric analysis of imperfect competition and implications for trade research," Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley, Working Paper Series qt46w1j22d, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UC Berkeley.
    6. Shaffer, Sherrill, 2004. "Patterns of competition in banking," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 56(4), pages 287-313.
    7. Devin Garcia & Levent Kutlu & Robin C. Sickles, 2022. "Market Structures in Production Economics," Springer Books, in: Subhash C. Ray & Robert G. Chambers & Subal C. Kumbhakar (ed.), Handbook of Production Economics, chapter 13, pages 537-574, Springer.
    8. Natsuko Iwasaki & Barry Seldon & Victor Tremblay, 2008. "Brewing Wars of Attrition for Profit (and Concentration)," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 33(4), pages 263-279, December.
    9. Goo, Moon Mo, 1997. "The measurement of market power: short-run, long-run, and dynamic adjustment models," ISU General Staff Papers 1997010108000012985, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    10. Ian Sheldon & Richard Sperling, 2003. "Estimating the Extent of Imperfect Competition in the Food Industry: What Have We Learned?," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 89-109, March.
    11. Timothy Dunne & Mark J Roberts, 1992. "Costs, Demand, and Imperfect Competition as Determinants of Plant_level Output Prices," Working Papers 92-5, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
    12. Kaplow, Louis & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Antitrust," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 1073-1225, Elsevier.
    13. Ghosal, Vivek, 2007. "Small is Beautiful but Size Matters: The Asymmetric Impact of Uncertainty and Sunk Costs on Small and Large Businesses," MPRA Paper 5461, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Ghosal, Vivek, 2002. "Impact of Uncertainty and Sunk Costs on Firm Survival and Industry Dynamics," Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2002 86, Royal Economic Society.
    15. Asplund, Marcus, 2002. "Risk-averse firms in oligopoly," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(7), pages 995-1012, September.
    16. Catherine A. Durham, 1991. "The Empirical Analysis of Oligopsony in Agricultural Markets: Residual Supply Estimation in California's Processing Tomato Market," Food Marketing Policy Center Research Reports 015, University of Connecticut, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Charles J. Zwick Center for Food and Resource Policy.
    17. d'Aspremont, Claude & Dos Santos Ferreira, Rodolphe, 2009. "Price-quantity competition with varying toughness," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 62-82, January.
    18. Vishal Singh & Ting Zhu, 2008. "Pricing and Market Concentration in Oligopoly Markets," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 27(6), pages 1020-1035, 11-12.
    19. Leheyda, Nina, 2008. "Geographical and Multi-product Linkages of Markets: Impact on Firm Equilibrium Interactions (Some Evidence from the European Car Market)," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-119, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    20. Ghosal, Vivek, 2000. "Product market competition and the industry price-cost markup fluctuations:: role of energy price and monetary changes," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 415-444, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Industrial Organization;

    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:ags:uconnr:25181. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fmuctus.html .

    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.