IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/manchs/v83y2015i5p546-567.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Endogenous Choice of Strategic Variables in an Asymmetric Duopoly with Respect to the Demand Functions that Firms Face

Author

Listed:
  • Yasuhiko Nakamura

Abstract

type="main"> This paper examines endogenous choice of firm's strategic variables—i.e. price or quantity contract—in a duopoly in which the demand functions that they face are asymmetric in managerial delegation case with separation between ownership and management. We show that when the degree of asymmetry between the demand functions that the two firms face is low, price and quantity competitions are observed in the equilibrium, whereas when the degree of such asymmetry is high, the two types of market structures in which the strategic variables selected by the two owners are different from each other are observed in the equilibrium.

Suggested Citation

  • Yasuhiko Nakamura, 2015. "Endogenous Choice of Strategic Variables in an Asymmetric Duopoly with Respect to the Demand Functions that Firms Face," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 83(5), pages 546-567, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:manchs:v:83:y:2015:i:5:p:546-567
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/manc.12073
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, January.
    2. Fershtman, Chaim & Judd, Kenneth L, 1987. "Equilibrium Incentives in Oligopoly," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(5), pages 927-940, December.
    3. Hamilton, Jonathan H. & Slutsky, Steven M., 1990. "Endogenous timing in duopoly games: Stackelberg or cournot equilibria," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 29-46, March.
    4. Steven D. Sklivas, 1987. "The Strategic Choice of Managerial Incentives," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(3), pages 452-458, Autumn.
    5. Ritz, Robert A., 2008. "Strategic incentives for market share," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 586-597, March.
    6. Constantine Manasakis & Evangelos Mitrokostas & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2010. "Endogenous managerial incentive contracts in a differentiated duopoly, with and without commitment," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(8), pages 531-543, December.
    7. Avinash Dixit, 1979. "A Model of Duopoly Suggesting a Theory of Entry Barriers," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 20-32, Spring.
    8. Berr, Fabian, 2011. "Stackelberg equilibria in managerial delegation games," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 212(2), pages 251-262, July.
    9. Miller, Nolan H & Pazgal, Amit I, 2001. "The Equivalence of Price and Quantity Competition with Delegation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(2), pages 284-301, Summer.
    10. Nirvikar Singh & Xavier Vives, 1984. "Price and Quantity Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(4), pages 546-554, Winter.
    11. Chirco, Alessandra & Scrimitore, Marcella, 2013. "Choosing price or quantity? The role of delegation and network externalities," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(3), pages 482-486.
    12. Lambertini, Luca, 2000. "Strategic Delegation and the Shape of Market Competition," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 47(5), pages 550-570, November.
    13. Nolan Miller & Amit Pazgal, 2002. "Relative performance as a strategic commitment mechanism," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(2), pages 51-68.
    14. Tanaka, Yasuhito, 2001. "Profitability of price and quantity strategies in an oligopoly," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(3), pages 409-418, June.
    15. Bulow, Jeremy I & Geanakoplos, John D & Klemperer, Paul D, 1985. "Multimarket Oligopoly: Strategic Substitutes and Complements," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(3), pages 488-511, June.
    16. Jansen, Thijs & van Lier, Arie & van Witteloostuijn, Arjen, 2007. "A note on strategic delegation: The market share case," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 531-539, June.
    17. Tombak, Mihkel M., 2006. "Strategic asymmetry," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 339-350, November.
    18. Paul Klemperer & Margaret Meyer, 1986. "Price Competition vs. Quantity Competition: The Role of Uncertainty," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(4), pages 618-638, Winter.
    19. Kangsik Choi & Yuanzhu Lu, 2012. "A Note On Endogenous Timing With Strategic Delegation: Unilateral Externality Case," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(2), pages 253-264, April.
    20. Matsumura, Toshihiro & Ogawa, Akira, 2012. "Price versus quantity in a mixed duopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 174-177.
    21. Vickers, John, 1985. "Delegation and the Theory of the Firm," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 95(380a), pages 138-147, Supplemen.
    22. Leonard Wang & Ya-Chin Wang, 2010. "Input Pricing and Market Share Delegation in a Vertically Related Market: Is the Timing Order Relevant?," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 207-221.
    23. Markus Reisinger & Ludwig Ressner, 2009. "The Choice of Prices versus Quantities under Uncertainty," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 18(4), pages 1155-1177, December.
    24. Trishita Bhattacharjee & Rupayan Pal, 2013. "Price vs. Quantity in duopoly with strategic delegation: Role of network externalities," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2013-010, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    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. repec:spr:epolit:v:34:y:2017:i:2:d:10.1007_s40888-017-0065-3 is not listed on IDEAS

    More about this item

    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:bla:manchs:v:83:y:2015:i:5:p:546-567. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Wiley Content Delivery) or (Christopher F. Baum). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/semanuk.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.