Do mergers lead to monopoly in the long run? Results from the dominant firm model
AbstractWill an industry with no antitrust policy converge to monopoly, competition or somewhere in between? We analyze this question using a dynamic dominant firm model with rational agents, endogenous mergers and constant returns to scale production. We find that perfect competition and monopoly are always steady states of this model and that there may be other steady states with a dominant firm and a fringe co-existing. Mergers are likely only when supply is inelastic or demand is elastic, suggesting that the ability of a dominant firm to raise price through monopolization is limited. Additionally, as the discount rate increases, it becomes harder to monopolize the industry, because the dominant firm cannot commit to not raising prices in the future.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis in its series Staff Report with number 264.
Date of creation: 2000
Date of revision:
Other versions of this item:
- Gautam Gowrisankaran & Thomas J. Holmes, 2002. "Do Mergers Lead to Monopoly in the Long Run? Results from the Dominant Firm Model," NBER Working Papers 9151, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- H22 - Public Economics - - Taxation, Subsidies, and Revenue - - - Incidence
- Q48 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Energy - - - Government Policy
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Eric Maskin & Jean Tirole, 2010.
"A Theory of Dynamic Oligopoly, 1: Overview and Quantity Competition with Large Fixed Costs,"
Levine's Working Paper Archive
397, David K. Levine.
- Maskin, Eric & Tirole, Jean, 1988. "A Theory of Dynamic Oligopoly, I: Overview and Quantity Competition with Large Fixed Costs," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(3), pages 549-69, May.
- J. Tirole & E. Maskin, 1982. "A Theory of Dynamic Oligopoly, I: Overview and Quantity Competition with Large-Fixed Costs," Working papers 320, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
- Kwang Soo Cheong & Kenneth L Judd, 1997. "Mergers and Dynamic Oligopoly," Working Papers 199714, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
- Perry, Martin K & Porter, Robert H, 1985. "Oligopoly and the Incentive for Horizontal Merger," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(1), pages 219-27, March.
- Dixit, Avinash, 1979.
"The Role of Investment in Entry-Deterrence,"
The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS)
140, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
- Salant, Stephen W & Switzer, Sheldon & Reynolds, Robert J, 1983. "Losses from Horizontal Merger: The Effects of an Exogenous Change in Industry Structure on Cournot-Nash Equilibrium," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 98(2), pages 185-99, May.
- Judd, Kenneth L. & Petersen, Bruce C., 1986.
"Dynamic limit pricing and internal finance,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 39(2), pages 368-399, August.
- Holmes, Thomas J., 1996. "Can consumers benefit from a policy limiting the market share of a dominant firm?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 365-387, May.
- Kamien, Morton I & Zang, Israel, 1990.
"The Limits of Monopolization through Acquisition,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
MIT Press, vol. 105(2), pages 465-99, May.
- Morton I. Kamien & Israel Zang, 1987. "The Limits of Monopolization Through Acquisition," Discussion Papers 754, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Morton I. Kamien & Israel Zang, 1988. "The Limits of Monopolization Through Acquisition," Discussion Papers 802, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Shleifer, Andrei & Vishny, Robert W, 1986.
"Large Shareholders and Corporate Control,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(3), pages 461-88, June.
- Kydland, Finn, 1979. " A Dynamic Dominant Firm Model of Industry Structure," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 81(3), pages 355-66.
- Kwang-Soo Cheong, . "Mergers and Dynamic Oligopoly," Computing in Economics and Finance 1997 126, Society for Computational Economics.
- Gaskins, Darius Jr., 1971. "Dynamic limit pricing: Optimal pricing under threat of entry," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(3), pages 306-322, September.
- Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo & Nicolás Porteiro, 2006.
"Sequential Formation of Coalitions Through Bilateral Agreements in a Cournot Setting,"
International Journal of Game Theory,
Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 207-228, August.
- Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo & Nicolás Porteiro, 2006. "Sequential Formation of Coalitions through Bilateral Agreements in a Cournot Setting," Working Papers 06.01, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Economics.
- Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo & Nicol? Porteiro, 2002.
"Sequential Formation of Coalitions through Bilateral Agreements,"
UFAE and IAE Working Papers
515.02, Unitat de Fonaments de l'Anàlisi Econòmica (UAB) and Institut d'Anàlisi Econòmica (CSIC).
- Inés Macho-Stadler & David Pérez-Castrillo & Nicolás Porteiro, 2003. "Sequential Formation of Coalitions through Bilateral Agreements," Working Papers 84, Barcelona Graduate School of Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Janelle Ruswick).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.