IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mcd/mcddps/2014_07.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Downstream Market Power and the Lerner Index

Author

Abstract

A well-known result in oligopoly theory regarding one-tier industries is that the equilibrium mark-up and the Lerner index decreases with the number of firms. In other words, market power is diminished when more firms are present in the market. In the present paper, we consider a two-tier industry and focus on the behaviour of the equilibrium mark-up and Lerner index in the downstream market with respect to a change in the number of downstream ?rms. In a very general setting, without specific demand functions for final goods and vertical relations between upstream and downstream firms, we derive conditions under which the equilibrium downstream mark-up and Lerner index may increase with the number of downstream firms. Moreover, we show that, in contrast to the case of one-tier industries, the equilibrium mark-up and Lerner index in the downstream market can move to opposite directions as a result of an increase in the number of downstream firms. We also provide a specific example by considering a successive Cournot oligopoly model where firms freely enter into the upstream market.

Suggested Citation

  • Ioannis Pinopoulos, 2014. "Downstream Market Power and the Lerner Index," Discussion Paper Series 2014_07, Department of Economics, University of Macedonia, revised Nov 2014.
    • Handle: RePEc:mcd:mcddps:2014_07
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://aphrodite.uom.gr/econwp/pdf/dp072014.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard S. Higgins, 1999. "Competitive vertical foreclosure," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 20(4), pages 229-237.
    2. Motta,Massimo, 2004. "Competition Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521816632.
    3. Roman Inderst & Tommaso M. Valletti, 2007. "Market Analysis In The Presence Of Indirect Constraints And Captive Sales," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 203-231.
    4. Arghya Ghosh & Hodaka Morita, 2007. "Free entry and social efficiency under vertical oligopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(2), pages 541-554, June.
    5. Inderst, Roman, 2010. "Models of vertical market relations," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 341-344, July.
    6. Miklós-Thal, Jeanine & Rey, Patrick & Vergé, Thibaud, 2010. "Vertical relations," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 345-349, July.
    7. Alexander Schrader & Stephen Martin, 1998. "Vertical Market Participation," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 13(3), pages 321-331, June.
    8. Matsushima, Noriaki, 2006. "Industry profits and free entry in input markets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 93(3), pages 329-336, December.
    9. Walter Elberfeld, 2002. "Market size and vertical integration: Stigler’s hypothesis reconsidered," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 23-42, March.
    10. Michael A. Salinger, 1988. "Vertical Mergers and Market Foreclosure," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 103(2), pages 345-356.
    11. Abiru, Masahiro & Nahata, Babu & Raychaudhuri, Subhashis & Waterson, Michael, 1998. "Equilibrium structures in vertical oligopoly," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 463-480, December.
    12. Roman Inderst & Tommaso Valletti, 2009. "Indirect versus Direct Constraints in Markets with Vertical Integration," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 111(3), pages 527-546, September.
    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. Ioannis N. Pinopoulos, 2011. "Input foreclosure under alternative entry conditions in the upstream market," Discussion Paper Series 2011_15, Department of Economics, University of Macedonia, revised Nov 2011.
    2. Roman Inderst & Tommaso M. Valletti, 2007. "Market Analysis In The Presence Of Indirect Constraints And Captive Sales," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 203-231.
    3. Erotokritos Varelas, 2014. "Bank structure and public debt," Discussion Paper Series 2014_06, Department of Economics, University of Macedonia, revised Sep 2014.
    4. Arijit Mukherjee & Udo Broll & Soma Mukherjee, 2009. "The welfare effects of entry: the role of the input market," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 98(3), pages 189-201, December.
    5. Ioannis N. Pinopoulos, 2014. "Equilibrium downstream mark-up and upstream free entry," Discussion Paper Series 2014_02, Department of Economics, University of Macedonia, revised Sep 2014.
    6. Buehler, Stefan & Schmutzler, Armin, 2008. "Intimidating competitors -- Endogenous vertical integration and downstream investment in successive oligopoly," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 247-265, January.
    7. Inderst, Roman & Valletti, Tommaso, 2011. "Incentives for input foreclosure," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(6), pages 820-831, August.
    8. Christos Constantatos & Ioannis Pinopoulos, 2013. "Accommodation effects in successive Cournot Oligopolies," Discussion Paper Series 2013_06, Department of Economics, University of Macedonia, revised Dec 2013.
    9. Michiel Bijlsma & Viktoria Kocsis & Victoria Shestalova & Gijsbert Zwart, 2008. "Vertical foreclosure: a policy framework," CPB Document 157, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    10. Ghosh, Arghya & Morita, Hodaka & Wang, Chengsi, 2014. "Horizontal mergers in the presence of vertical relationships," MPRA Paper 60275, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Zhiyong Yao & Wen Zhou, 2011. "Endogenous Merger Waves in Vertically Related Industries," Working Papers 11-34, NET Institute.
    12. Matsushima Noriaki & Mizuno Tomomichi, 2012. "Equilibrium Vertical Integration with Complementary Input Markets," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 12(1), pages 1-32, June.
    13. Baake, Pio & Kamecke, Ulrich & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2004. "Vertical foreclosure versus downstream competition with capital precommitment," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 185-192, February.
    14. Wang, Kuang-Cheng A. & Koo, Hui-Wen & Chen, Tain-Jy, 2011. "Domestic trade protection in vertically-related markets," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 1595-1603, July.
    15. Noriaki Matsushima & Tomomichi Mizuno, 2007. "Why do large firms tend to integrate vertically? - asymmetric vertical integration reconsidered -," Discussion Papers 2007-34, Kobe University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
    16. Gianpaolo Rossini & Cecilia Vergari, 2014. "The Discrete Charm of Uniform Linear Pricing of an Input Production Joint Venture," Czech Economic Review, Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Economic Studies, vol. 8(2), pages 68-83, October.
    17. Walter Elberfeld, 2001. "Explaining Intraindustry Differences in the Extent of Vertical Integration," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 157(3), pages 465-477, September.
    18. Laurent Linnemer, 2000. "When Backward Integration by a Dominant Firm Improves Welfare," Working Papers 2000-42, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    19. Hans Jarle Kind & Tore Nilssen & Lars Sørgard, 2007. "Competition for Viewers and Advertisers in a TV Oligopoly," Journal of Media Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(3), pages 211-233.
    20. Lin, Ping, 2006. "Strategic spin-offs of input divisions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(4), pages 977-993, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Vertically related markets; Market power; Lerner index.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L4 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies
    • L22 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - Firm Organization and Market Structure

    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:mcd:mcddps:2014_07. 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: Theodore Panagiotidis or Anastasia Litina (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.uom.gr/index.php?tmima=3 .

    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.