Der Aufsatz analysiert zuerst, wie die Marktstruktur die Verteilung der Industrieprofite zwischen den Firmen bestimmt, woraus sich eindeutige Bedingungen für profitable Zusammenschlüsse ableiten lassen: Firmen des Einzelhandels stellen sich durch einen Zusammenschluss besser (schlechter), wenn die Herstellerfirmen mit steigenden (fallenden) Durchschnittskosten produzieren. Herstellerfirmen profitieren durch einen Zusammenschluss, wenn sie substituierbare Güter anbieten, während sie sich durch eine Fusion schlechter stellen, wenn sie komplementäre Güter absetzen.
Der nächste Schritt der Untersuchung erkundet die Wirkungen der Marktstruktur auf die Technologiewahlanreize der Hersteller, wobei die Adaption einer neuen Technologie einerseits mit niedrigeren marginalen Kosten und andererseits mit höheren inframarginalen (oder Fix-) Kosten einhergeht. Es zeigt sich, daß Herstellerfirmen höhere Anreize zur Senkung ihrer marginalen Kosten haben, wenn (i) der Einzelhandel vollständig monopolisiert ist und (ii) die Herstellerfirmen nicht integriert sind.
Die Untersuchung stellt damit die aktuellen Konzentrationsprozesse im Einzelhandel in ein neues Licht. Zusammenschlüsse zwischen Einzelhändlern führen dazu, dass Hersteller einen relativ höheren Anteil ihrer marginalen Kosten tragen müssen, was wiederum die Anreizen zur Verringerung derselben vergrößert. Dieses Ergebnis steht in einem scharfen Gegensatz zu der häufig geäußerten Hypothese, dass "mächtige" Einzelhandelsketten die Gewinne der Herstellerfirmen schmälern und folglich die Innovationstätigkeit im Produktionssektor nachhaltig beeinträchtigen.
In dem letzen Schritt der Untersuchung werden die Marktstruktur und die nachfolgende Technologiewahl der Herstellerfirmen endogen bestimmt. Die Analyse der gleichgewichtigen Marktstruktur bei endogener Technologiewahl fördert die Möglichkeit "strategischer Fusionen" zwischen Einzelhandelsfirmen zu Tage. In diesem Fall schließen sich zwei Einzelhändler zusammen, um die Herstellerfirmen zur Wahl der effizienten Technologie zu bewegen, obwohl die Einzelhändler durch die Fusion ihre Verhandlungsposition gegenüber den Herstellern schwächen. Interessanterweise stellen sich durch "strategische Einzelhandelsfusionen" alle Marktpartizipanten besser: die Hersteller, der Einzelhandel und die Konsumenten. Es zeigt sich allerdings auch, dass die endogen bestimmte Marktstruktur nicht immer die Wohlfahrt maximiert.">

This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Bargaining, Mergers, and Technology Choice in Bilaterally Oligopolistic Industries

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Roman Inderst
Christian Wey

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

This paper provides a conceptual framework of multilateral bargaining in a bilaterally oligopolistic industry to analyze the motivations for horizontal mergers, technology choice, and their welfare implications. We first analyze the implication of market structure for the distribution of industry profits. We find that retailer mergers are more likely (less likely) if suppliers have increasing (decreasing) unit costs, while supplier mergers are more likely (less likely) if goods are substitutes (complements). In a second step we explore how market structure affects suppliers' technology choice, which reflects a trade-off between inframarginal and marginal production costs. We find that suppliers focus more on marginal cost reduction if (i) retailers are integrated and (ii) suppliers are non-integrated.
In a final step we consider the whole picture where both market structure and (subsequent) technology choice are endogenous. Analyzing the equilibrium market structure, we find cases where retailers become integrated to induce suppliers to choose a more efficient technology, even though integration weakens their bargaining position. In this case the merger benefits all parties, i.e., suppliers, retailers, and even consumers. However, we also show that the equilibrium market structure does often not maximize welfare.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG - (Verhandlungen, Fusionen und Technologiewahl in bilateralen Oligopolen)
Diese Arbeit entwickelt einen Modellrahmen für multilaterale Verhandlungen in bilateralen Oligopolen, um die Fusions- und Technologiewahlanreize der Unternehmen sowie deren Wohlfahrtswirkungen zu untersuchen. Der wichtigste Anwendungsbereich des Modells sind die Firmenbeziehungen zwischen Einzelhandelsketten und Herstellerfirmen. Beide Handelsstufen sind weder vollkommen monopolisiert noch perfekt fragmentiert. Vielmehr stehen auf jeder Handelsstufe wenige "große" Firmen miteinander in Konkurrenz. Die Geschäftbeziehungen zwischen Herstellern und Einzelhandel sind zu dem multilateral angelegt, so dass ein Hersteller seine Produkte typischerweise an mehrere Einzelhandelsketten verkauft und Unternehmen des Einzelhandels mehrere Herstellermarken anbieten.
Der Aufsatz analysiert zuerst, wie die Marktstruktur die Verteilung der Industrieprofite zwischen den Firmen bestimmt, woraus sich eindeutige Bedingungen für profitable Zusammenschlüsse ableiten lassen: Firmen des Einzelhandels stellen sich durch einen Zusammenschluss besser (schlechter), wenn die Herstellerfirmen mit steigenden (fallenden) Durchschnittskosten produzieren. Herstellerfirmen profitieren durch einen Zusammenschluss, wenn sie substituierbare Güter anbieten, während sie sich durch eine Fusion schlechter stellen, wenn sie komplementäre Güter absetzen.
Der nächste Schritt der Untersuchung erkundet die Wirkungen der Marktstruktur auf die Technologiewahlanreize der Hersteller, wobei die Adaption einer neuen Technologie einerseits mit niedrigeren marginalen Kosten und andererseits mit höheren inframarginalen (oder Fix-) Kosten einhergeht. Es zeigt sich, daß Herstellerfirmen höhere Anreize zur Senkung ihrer marginalen Kosten haben, wenn (i) der Einzelhandel vollständig monopolisiert ist und (ii) die Herstellerfirmen nicht integriert sind.
Die Untersuchung stellt damit die aktuellen Konzentrationsprozesse im Einzelhandel in ein neues Licht. Zusammenschlüsse zwischen Einzelhändlern führen dazu, dass Hersteller einen relativ höheren Anteil ihrer marginalen Kosten tragen müssen, was wiederum die Anreizen zur Verringerung derselben vergrößert. Dieses Ergebnis steht in einem scharfen Gegensatz zu der häufig geäußerten Hypothese, dass "mächtige" Einzelhandelsketten die Gewinne der Herstellerfirmen schmälern und folglich die Innovationstätigkeit im Produktionssektor nachhaltig beeinträchtigen.
In dem letzen Schritt der Untersuchung werden die Marktstruktur und die nachfolgende Technologiewahl der Herstellerfirmen endogen bestimmt. Die Analyse der gleichgewichtigen Marktstruktur bei endogener Technologiewahl fördert die Möglichkeit "strategischer Fusionen" zwischen Einzelhandelsfirmen zu Tage. In diesem Fall schließen sich zwei Einzelhändler zusammen, um die Herstellerfirmen zur Wahl der effizienten Technologie zu bewegen, obwohl die Einzelhändler durch die Fusion ihre Verhandlungsposition gegenüber den Herstellern schwächen. Interessanterweise stellen sich durch "strategische Einzelhandelsfusionen" alle Marktpartizipanten besser: die Hersteller, der Einzelhandel und die Konsumenten. Es zeigt sich allerdings auch, dass die endogen bestimmte Marktstruktur nicht immer die Wohlfahrt maximiert.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help file. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://skylla.wz-berlin.de/pdf/2001/iv01-19.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG) in its series CIG Working Papers with number FS IV 01-19.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML, plain text, BibTeX, RIS (EndNote), ReDIF
Length: 47 pages
Date of creation: Nov 2001
Date of revision:
Publication status: Published in RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 34(1), 2003, pp. 1-19.
Handle: RePEc:wzb:wzebiv:fsiv01-19

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Reichpietschufer 50, 10785 Berlin, Germany
Phone: (++49)(30) 25491-441
Fax: (++49)(30) 25491-442
Web page: http://www.wzb.eu/mp/wiw/default.en.htm
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Jennifer Rontganger).

Related research
Keywords: Bilateral Oligopoly Antitrust Bargaining Power Merger Retailing Technology Choice

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
D40 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure and Pricing - - - General
L10 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - General
L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

  1. Flaherty, M Therese, 1980. "Industry Structure and Cost-Reducing Investment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(5), pages 1187-1209, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Henrick Horn & Asher Wolinsky, 1988. "Bilateral Monopolies and Incentives for Merger," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(3), pages 408-419, Autumn. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  3. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Aghion, Philippe & Bolton, Patrick, 1987. "Contracts as a Barrier to Entry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 388-401, June.
  5. Inderst, Roman, 2000. "Multi-issue Bargaining with Endogenous Agenda," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 64-82, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Jun, Byoung Heon, 1989. "Non-cooperative Bargaining and Union Formation," Review of Economic Studies, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 56(1), pages 59-76, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Hart, Oliver & Moore, John, 1990. "Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(6), pages 1119-58, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  8. Eaton, B Curtis & Schmitt, Nicolas, 1994. "Flexible Manufacturing and Market Structure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(4), pages 875-88, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  9. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver D, 1986. "The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 94(4), pages 691-719, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  10. repec:ccp:journl:v:1:y:2001:i:3:p:247-281 is not listed on IDEAS
  11. Ordover, Janusz A & Saloner, Garth & Salop, Steven C, 1990. "Equilibrium Vertical Foreclosure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 127-42, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. Rachel E. Kranton & Deborah F. Minehart, 2000. "Networks versus Vertical Integration," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(3), pages 570-601, Autumn.
  13. Horn, Henrik & Wolinsky, Asher, 1988. "Worker Substitutability and Patterns of Unionisation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 98(391), pages 484-97, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. Bolton, Patrick & Scharfstein, David S, 1996. "Optimal Debt Structure and the Number of Creditors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(1), pages 1-25, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. Ken Binmore & Ariel Rubinstein & Asher Wolinsky, 1986. "The Nash Bargaining Solution in Economic Modelling," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(2), pages 176-188, Summer. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  16. Matthew O. Jackson & Asher Wolinsky, 1995. "A Strategic Model of Social and Economic Networks," Discussion Papers 1098R, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  17. B. Douglas Bernheim & Michael D. Whinston, 1998. "Exclusive Dealing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(1), pages 64-103, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  18. Paul Dobson & Michael Waterson, 1999. "Retailer power: recent developments and policy implications," Economic Policy, CEPR, CES, MSH, vol. 14(28), pages 133-164, 04. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  19. Marcel Boyer & Michel Moreaux, 1997. "Capacity Commitment versus Flexibility," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 6(1), pages 347-376, 06. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  20. 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. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  21. Farrell, Joseph & Shapiro, Carl, 1990. "Horizontal Mergers: An Equilibrium Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 107-26, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  22. Spence, Michael, 1984. "Cost Reduction, Competition, and Industry Performance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(1), pages 101-21, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  23. Farber, Stephen C, 1981. "Buyer Market Structure and R&D Effort: A Simultaneous Equations Model," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 63(3), pages 336-45, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  24. Waterson, Michael, 1980. "Price-Cost Margins and Successive Market Power," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 94(1), pages 135-50, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  25. Qiu, Larry D., 1997. "On the Dynamic Efficiency of Bertrand and Cournot Equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 213-229, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  26. Salinger, Michael A, 1988. "Vertical Mergers and Market Foreclosure," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 103(2), pages 345-56, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  27. Dobson, Paul W & Waterson, Michael, 1997. "Countervailing Power and Consumer Prices," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(441), pages 418-30, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  28. Legros, Patrick, 1987. "Disadvantageous syndicates and stable cartels: The case of the nucleolus," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 30-49, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  29. Raymond Deneckere & Carl Davidson, 1985. "Incentives to Form Coalitions with Bertrand Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(4), pages 473-486, Winter. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  30. Bernheim, B Douglas & Whinston, Michael D, 1986. "Menu Auctions, Resource Allocation, and Economic Influence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 101(1), pages 1-31, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  31. Leslie M. Marx & Greg Shaffer, 1999. "Predatory Accommodation: Below-Cost Pricing without Exclusion in Intermediate Goods Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(1), pages 22-43, Spring. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  32. Bester, Helmut & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 1993. "The incentives for cost reduction in a differentiated industry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 519-534. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  33. Cai, Hongbin, 2000. "Delay in Multilateral Bargaining under Complete Information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 260-276, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  34. Stole, Lars A & Zwiebel, Jeffrey, 1996. "Intra-firm Bargaining under Non-binding Contracts," Review of Economic Studies, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 63(3), pages 375-410, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  35. Martin Gaynor & Deborah Haas-Wilson, . "Change, Consolidation, and Competition in Health Care Markets," GSIA Working Papers 1999-E31, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, 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.)

  1. Chrysovalantou Milliou & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2005. "Upstream Horizontal Mergers, Bargaining, Vertical Contracts," Economics Working Papers we051507, Universidad Carlos III, Departamento de Economía. [Downloadable!]
  2. Milliou, Chrysovalantou & Petrakis, Emmanuel & Vettas, Nikolaos, 2003. "Endogenous Contracts Under Bargaining in Competing Vertical Chains," CEPR Discussion Papers 3976, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  3. Chrysovalantou Miliou & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2005. "Upstream Horizontal Mergers, Bargaining and Vertical Contracts," Working Papers 0509, University of Crete, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  4. GOH, Ai-Ting, 2004. "Knowledge Diffusion, Supplier's Technological Effort and Technology Transfer via Vertical Relationships," Les Cahiers de Recherche 793, Groupe HEC. [Downloadable!]
  5. Nisvan Erkal, 2003. "Buyer-Supplier Interaction, Asset Specificity, And Product Choice," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 885, The University of Melbourne. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  6. Catherine de Fontenay & Joshua Gans, 2004. "Sequential Bilateral Bargaining and the Shapley value," Econometric Society 2004 Australasian Meetings 84, Econometric Society. [Downloadable!]
  7. Catherine C. de Fontenay & Joshua S. Gans, 2004. "Vertical Integration in the Presence of Upstream Competition," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 904, The University of Melbourne. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  8. Jim Engle-Warnick & Bradley Ruffle, 2002. "Buyer Countervailing Power versus Monopoly Power: Evidence from Experimental Posted-Offer Markets," Economics Papers 2002-W14, Economics Group, Nuffield College, University of Oxford. [Downloadable!]
  9. Roman Inderst & Tommaso M. Valletti, 2008. "Buyer Power and the “Waterbed Effect”," CEIS Research Paper 107, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 10 Jul 2008. [Downloadable!]
  10. Hans Normann, Bradley Ruffle and Christopher Snyder, 2004. "Do Buyer-Size Discounts Depend on the Curvature of the Surplus Function? Experimental Tests of Bargaining Models," Royal Holloway, University of London: Discussion Papers in Economics 04/01, Department of Economics, Royal Holloway University of London, revised Apr 2004. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  11. Biglaiser, Gary & Vettas, Nikolaos, 2004. "Dynamic Price Competition with Capacity Constraints and Strategic Buyers," CEPR Discussion Papers 4315, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  12. Jim Engle-Warnick & Bradley Ruffle, 2006. "The Strategies Behind Their Actions: A Method To Infer Repeated-Game Strategies And An Application To Buyer Behavior," Departmental Working Papers 2005-04, McGill University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  13. Marie-Laure Allain & Saïd Souam, 2004. "Concentration horizontale et relations verticales," Post-Print hal-00242914_v1, HAL. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? Use the JEL tree to browse through the database by subfields.

This page was last updated on 2008-8-18.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.