IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bol/bodewp/wp823.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Vertical relations and number of channels in quality-differentiated markets

Author

Listed:
  • E. Bacchiega
  • O. Bonroy

Abstract

Double marginalization causes inefficiencies in vertical markets. This paper argues that such inefficiencies may be beneficial to final consumers in markets producing vertically differentiated goods. The rationale behind this result is that enhancing efficiency in high-quality supply chains through vertical integration may drive out of the market low-quality ones, thus affecting market structure. As a consequence, restoring-efficiency vertical integration may reduce consumer surplus, even in the absence of foreclosure strategies by the newly integrated firms. From a policy standpoint, our paper suggests that input and/or customer foreclosure should not be considered as the only source of antitrust concern when assessing the effects of vertical integration.

Suggested Citation

  • E. Bacchiega & O. Bonroy, 2012. "Vertical relations and number of channels in quality-differentiated markets," Working Papers wp823, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
  • Handle: RePEc:bol:bodewp:wp823
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://amsacta.unibo.it/4193/1/WP823.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gabszewicz, J. & Turrini, A., 2000. "Workers' skills, product quality and industry equilibrium," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 575-593, May.
    2. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Fumagalli, Chiara & Polo, Michele, 2007. "Buyer power and quality improvements," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 45-61, June.
    3. Jeffrey Church & Neil Gandal, 2000. "Systems Competition, Vertical Merger, and Foreclosure," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(1), pages 25-51, March.
    4. Lynne Pepall & George Norman, 2001. "Product Differentiation and Upstream‐Downstream Relations," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(2), pages 201-233, June.
    5. Vettas, Nikolaos & Biglaiser, Gary, 2004. "Dynamic Price Competition with Capacity Constraints and Strategic Buyers," CEPR Discussion Papers 4315, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Bonroy, Olivier & Lemarié, Stéphane, 2012. "Downstream labeling and upstream price competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 347-360.
    7. Roberto Hernán González & Praveen Kujal, 2012. "Vertical integration, market foreclosure and quality investment," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 11(1), pages 1-20, April.
    8. Paul Belleflamme & Eric Toulemonde, 2003. "Product differentiation in successive vertical oligopolies," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(3), pages 523-545, August.
    9. Roman Inderst & Greg Shaffer, 2007. "Retail Mergers, Buyer Power and Product Variety," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 117(516), pages 45-67, January.
    10. Jaskold Gabszewicz, J. & Thisse, J. -F., 1979. "Price competition, quality and income disparities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 340-359, June.
    11. Wauthy, Xavier, 1996. "Quality Choice in Models of Vertical Differentiation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(3), pages 345-353, September.
    12. E. Avenel, 2008. "Strategic Vertical Integration Without Foreclosure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 247-262, June.
    13. Avenel, E. & Caprice, S., 2006. "Upstream market power and product line differentiation in retailing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 319-334, March.
    14. C. Robert Clark & Mattias K. Polborn, 2011. "Strategic Buying to Prevent Seller Exit," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 20(2), pages 339-378, June.
    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. Emanuele Bacchiega & Olivier Bonroy, 2015. "On the benefits of contractual inefficiency in quality-differentiated markets," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 67(3), pages 846-863.
    2. Noriaki Matsushima, 2009. "Vertical Mergers And Product Differentiation," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 812-834, December.
    3. Erkal, Nisvan, 2007. "Buyer-supplier interaction, asset specificity, and product choice," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 988-1010, October.
    4. Fabian Herweg, 2012. "Relaxing competition through quality differentiation and price discrimination," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 106(1), pages 1-26, May.
    5. Chambolle, Claire & Villas-Boas, Sofia B., 2015. "Buyer power through the differentiation of suppliers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 56-65.
    6. Claire Chambolle & Sofia Villas-Boas, 2007. "Buyer Power through Producer's Differentiation," Working Papers hal-00243058, HAL.
    7. Herweg, Fabian, 2007. "Can price discrimination lead to product differentiation? A vertical differentiation model," Bonn Econ Discussion Papers 2/2007, University of Bonn, Bonn Graduate School of Economics (BGSE).
    8. Ashantha Ranasinghe & Xuejuan Su, 2023. "When social assistance meets market power: A mixed duopoly view of health insurance in the United States," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 61(4), pages 851-869, October.
    9. Cédric Argenton, 2010. "Exclusive Quality," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 690-716, September.
    10. Stefano Quarta & Skerdilajda Zanaj, 2018. "Health and Pollution in a Vertically Differentiated Duopoly," DEM Discussion Paper Series 18-20, Department of Economics at the University of Luxembourg.
    11. Barry, I. & Bonroy, O. & Garella, P.G., 2015. "On taxes and subsidies with private eco-labeling," Working Papers 2015-09, Grenoble Applied Economics Laboratory (GAEL).
    12. Wang, X. Henry & Yang, Bill Z., 2001. "Mixed-strategy equilibria in a quality differentiation model," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 213-226, January.
    13. Bhattacharyya, Ranajoy & Saha, Bibhas, 2011. "Wage bargaining and quality competition," MPRA Paper 30968, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Luciano Fanti & Luca Gori, 2013. "Stability Analysis in a Bertrand Duopoly with Different Product Quality and Heterogeneous Expectations," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 13(4), pages 481-501, December.
    15. Amani Kahloul & Rim Lahmandi-Ayed & Hejer Lasram & Didier Laussel, 2017. "Democracy and competition: Vertical differentiation and labor in a general equilibrium model," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 19(4), pages 860-874, August.
    16. Acharyya, Rajat, 1998. "Monopoly and product quality: Separating or pooling menu?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 187-194, November.
    17. Battigalli, Pierpaolo & Fumagalli, Chiara & Polo, Michele, 2007. "Buyer power and quality improvements," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 45-61, June.
    18. Vanessa von Schlippenbach & Isabel Teichmann, 2012. "The Strategic Use of Private Quality Standards in Food Supply Chains," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 94(5), pages 1189-1201.
    19. Pio Baake & Vanessa Schlippenbach, 2011. "Quality distortions in vertical relations," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 103(2), pages 149-169, June.
    20. Dongmin Yao & Pengyuan Zhang & Xiaoyu Meng, 2023. "How to eliminate the uncovered market: A duopoly model with government intervention," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 94(2), pages 631-658, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure
    • L4 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:bol:bodewp:wp823. 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: Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sebolit.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.