IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/boc/bocoec/847.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Market Share Regulation?

Author

Listed:
  • Hideo Konishi

    (Boston College)

  • Çaglar Yurtseven

    (Bahcesehir University)

Abstract

In the 1950s and 60s, Japanese and US antitrust authorities occassionally used the degree of concentration to regulate industries. Does regulating firms based on their market shares make theoretical sense? We set up a simple duopoly model with stochastic R&D activities to evaluate market share regulation policy. On the one hand, market share regulation discourages the larger company's R&D investment and causes economic inefficiency. On the other hand, it facilitates the smaller company's survival, and prevents the larger company from monopolizing the market. We show that consumers tend to benefit from market share regulation. However, the social welfare including firms' profits would be hurt if both firms are equally good at R&D innovation. Nonetheless, if the smaller firm can make innovations more efficiently, then protecting smaller firms through market share regulation can improve the social welfare. We relate our analysis to a case study of Asahi Brewery's introducing Asahi Super Dry to become the top market share company in the industry.

Suggested Citation

  • Hideo Konishi & Çaglar Yurtseven, 2013. "Market Share Regulation?," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 847, Boston College Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:boc:bocoec:847
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://fmwww.bc.edu/EC-P/wp847.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dixit, Avinash, 1980. "The Role of Investment in Entry-Deterrence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 90(357), pages 95-106, March.
    2. Mark Armstrong & David E.M. Sappington, 2006. "Regulation, Competition and Liberalization," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 44(2), pages 325-366, June.
    3. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    4. Lahiri, Sajal & Ono, Yoshiyasu, 1988. "Helping Minor Firms Reduces Welfare," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 98(393), pages 1199-1202, December.
    5. Junichiro Ishida & Toshihiro Matsumura & Noriaki Matsushima, 2011. "Market Competition, R&D And Firm Profits In Asymmetric Oligopoly," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 484-505, September.
    6. W. Kip Viscusi & Joseph E. Harrington & John M. Vernon, 2005. "Economics of Regulation and Antitrust, 4th Edition," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 4, volume 1, number 026222075x, December.
    7. Reinganum, Jennifer F., 1989. "The timing of innovation: Research, development, and diffusion," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 14, pages 849-908, Elsevier.
    8. Motta,Massimo, 2004. "Competition Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521016919.
    9. 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.
    10. Spence, Michael, 1984. "Cost Reduction, Competition, and Industry Performance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(1), pages 101-121, January.
    11. Creane, Anthony & Konishi, Hideo, 2009. "The unilateral incentives for technology transfers: Predation (and deterrence) by proxy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 379-389, May.
    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. Marasco, A. & Picucci, A. & Romano, A., 2016. "Market share dynamics using Lotka–Volterra models," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 49-62.

    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. Federico Etro, 2010. "Endogenous market structures and antitrust policy," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 57(1), pages 9-45, March.
    2. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, January.
    3. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2014. "Market power and regulation (scientific background)," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2014-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
    4. Haraguchi, Junichi & Matsumura, Toshihiro, 2017. "Firms' Costs, Profits, Entries, and Innovation under Optimal Privatization Policy," MPRA Paper 80927, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    5. Neary, J Peter & Leahy, Dermot, 2000. "Strategic Trade and Industrial Policy towards Dynamic Oligopolies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 484-508, April.
    6. Charles Bérubé & Marc Duhamel & Daniel Ershov, 2012. "Market Incentives for Business Innovation: Results from Canada," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 47-65, March.
    7. Kennedy, Robert E., 1997. "A tale of two economies: Economic restructuring in post-socialist Poland," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 841-865, June.
    8. Federico Etro, 2008. "Stackelberg Competition with Endogenous Entry," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(532), pages 1670-1697, October.
    9. Daniel F. Spulber, 1992. "Economic Analysis And Management Strategy: A Survey," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(3), pages 535-574, September.
    10. Glowicka, Ela, 2005. "Bailouts in a common market: a strategic approach," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 177, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    11. Jaffe, Adam B. & Newell, Richard G. & Stavins, Robert N., 2003. "Chapter 11 Technological change and the environment," Handbook of Environmental Economics, in: K. G. Mäler & J. R. Vincent (ed.), Handbook of Environmental Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 11, pages 461-516, Elsevier.
    12. Machiel Mulder & Victoria Shestalova & Gijsbert Zwart, 2006. "Liberalisation of European energy markets: challenges and policy options," CPB Document 138.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    13. Sundaram, Anant K. & John, Teresa A. & John, Kose, 1996. "An empirical analysis of strategic competition and firm values The case of R&D competition," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(3), pages 459-486, March.
    14. Cooper, David P., 2001. "Innovation and reciprocal externalities: information transmission via job mobility," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 403-425, August.
    15. Junichiro Ishida & Toshihiro Matsumura & Noriaki Matsushima, 2011. "Market Competition, R&D And Firm Profits In Asymmetric Oligopoly," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 484-505, September.
    16. Soete, Luc & Verspagen, Bart & ter Weel, Bas, 2010. "Systems of Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1159-1180, Elsevier.
    17. Sugata Marjit & Suryaprakash Mishra, 2020. "Quadratic Costs, Innovation and Welfare: The Role of Technology," CESifo Working Paper Series 8524, CESifo.
    18. Maria G. Romano, 2021. "R&D incentives and competitive pressure under hidden information," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 88(1), pages 56-78, July.
    19. Hattori, Keisuke & Yamada, Mai, 2020. "Welfare Implications of Sequential Entry with Heterogeneous Firms," MPRA Paper 103422, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Chang-Yang Lee & Ji-Hwan Lee & Ajai S. Gaur, 2017. "Are large business groups conducive to industry innovation? The moderating role of technological appropriability," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 313-337, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    R&D investment; market share; regulations; welfare analysis;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • L66 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Manufacturing - - - Food; Beverages; Cosmetics; Tobacco

    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:boc:bocoec:847. 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: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/debocus.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.