IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/randje/v43y2012i1p139-166.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Demand shocks, capacity coordination, and industry performance: lessons from an economic laboratory

Author

Listed:
  • Kyle Hampton
  • Katerina Sherstyuk

Abstract

Antitrust exemptions granted to businesses under extenuating circumstances are often justified by the argument that they benefit the public by helping producers adjust to otherwise difficult economic circumstances. Such exemptions may allow firms to coordinate their capacities, as was the case of post-September 11, 2001 antitrust immunity granted to Aloha and Hawaiian Airlines. We conduct economic laboratory experiments to determine the effects of explicit capacity coordination on oligopoly firms' abilities to adjust to negative demand shocks and on industry prices. The results suggest that capacity coordination speeds the adjustment process, but also has a clear pro-collusive effect on firm behavior.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Kyle Hampton & Katerina Sherstyuk, 2012. "Demand shocks, capacity coordination, and industry performance: lessons from an economic laboratory," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(1), pages 139-166, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:randje:v:43:y:2012:i:1:p:139-166
    DOI: j.1756-2171.2012.00160.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1756-2171.2012.00160.x
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/j.1756-2171.2012.00160.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Armstrong & Steffen Huck, 2011. "Behavioral Economics as Applied to Firms: A Primer," Antitrust Chronicle, Competition Policy International, vol. 1.
    2. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    3. Rees, Ray, 1993. "Collusive Equilibrium in the Great Salt Duopoly," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 103(419), pages 833-848, July.
    4. Svend Albæk & Peter Møllgaard & Per B. Overgaard, 1997. "Government‐Assisted Oligopoly Coordination? A Concrete Case," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 429-443, December.
    5. Grether, David M & Plott, Charles R, 1984. "The Effects of Market Practices in Oligopolistic Markets: An Experimental Examination of the Ethyl Case," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 22(4), pages 479-507, October.
    6. Van Boening, Mark V & Wilcox, Nathaniel T, 1996. "Avoidable Cost: Ride a Double Auction Roller Coaster," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 461-477, June.
    7. Muren, Astri, 2000. "Quantity precommitment in an experimental oligopoly market," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 147-157, February.
    8. Brown-Kruse, Jamie, et al, 1994. "Bertrand-Edgeworth Competition in Experimental Markets," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(2), pages 343-372, March.
    9. Charles N. Noussair & Charles R. Plott & Raymond G. Riezman, 2013. "An Experimental Investigation of the Patterns of International Trade," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Raymond Riezman (ed.), International Trade Agreements and Political Economy, chapter 17, pages 299-328, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    10. Dufwenberg, Martin & Gneezy, Uri, 2000. "Price competition and market concentration: an experimental study," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 7-22, January.
    11. Osborne, Martin J. & Pitchik, Carolyn, 1986. "Price competition in a capacity-constrained duopoly," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 238-260, April.
    12. Ola Andersson & Erik Wengström, 2007. "Do Antitrust Laws Facilitate Collusion? Experimental Evidence on Costly Communication in Duopolies," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(2), pages 321-339, June.
    13. Huck, Steffen & Normann, Hans-Theo & Oechssler, Jorg, 2004. "Two are few and four are many: number effects in experimental oligopolies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 435-446, April.
    14. Margaret C. Levenstein & Valerie Y. Suslow, 2002. "What Determines Cartel Success?," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2002-01, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    15. Theo Offerman & Jan Potters, 2006. "Does Auctioning of Entry Licences Induce Collusion? An Experimental Study," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 73(3), pages 769-791.
    16. Rodger D. Blair & James Mak & Carl Bonham, 2007. "Collusive Duopoly: The Economic Effects of Aloha and Hawaiian Airlines� Agreement to Reduce Capacity," Working Papers 2007-1, University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
    17. Sjostrom, William, 1989. "Collusion in Ocean Shipping: A Test of Monopoly and Empty Core Model s," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 97(5), pages 1160-1179, October.
    18. Jose Apesteguia & Martin Dufwenberg & Reinhard Selten, 2007. "Blowing the Whistle," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 31(1), pages 143-166, April.
    19. Alexander L. Brown & Charles R. Plott & Heidi J. Sullivan, 2009. "Collusion Facilitating And Collusion Breaking Power Of Simultaneous Ascending And Descending Price Auctions," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 47(3), pages 395-424, July.
    20. Albaek, Svend & Mollgaard, Peter & Overgaard, Per B, 1997. "Government-Assisted Oligopoly Coordination? A Concrete Case," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(4), pages 429-443, December.
    21. Deck, Cary A. & Wilson, Bart J., 2008. "Experimental gasoline markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 134-149, July.
    22. Davis, Douglas D. & Harrison, Glenn W. & Williams, Arlington W., 1993. "Convergence to nonstationary competitive equilibria : An experimental analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 305-326, December.
    23. Johan Stennek, 1997. "Coordination in Oligopoly," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 99(4), pages 541-554, December.
    24. Durham, Yvonne & McCabe, Kevin & Olson, Mark A. & Rassenti, Stephen & Smith, Vernon, 2004. "Oligopoly competition in fixed cost environments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 147-162, February.
    25. Eads, George C, 1974. "Airline Capacity Limitation Controls: Public Vice or Public Virtue?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 64(2), pages 365-371, May.
    26. Plott, Charles R., 1989. "An updated review of industrial organization: Applications of experimental methods," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 19, pages 1109-1176, Elsevier.
    27. Alexander, Barbara, 1994. "The Impact of the National Industrial Recovery Act on Cartel Formation and Maintenance Costs," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(2), pages 245-254, May.
    28. Goodwin, David & Mestelman, Stuart, 2010. "A note comparing the capacity setting performance of the Kreps-Scheinkman duopoly model with the Cournot duopoly model in a laboratory setting," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 522-525, September.
    29. Williams, Arlington W & Smith, Vernon L, 1984. "Cyclical Double-Auction Markets with and without Speculators," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 1-33, January.
    30. Rene Y. Kamita, 2010. "Analyzing the Effects of Temporary Antitrust Immunity: The Aloha-Hawaiian Immunity Agreement," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 53(2), pages 239-261, May.
    31. Davis, Douglas D., 1999. "Advance production and Cournot outcomes: an experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 59-79, September.
    32. Jeroen Hinloopen & Adriaan R. Soetevent, 2008. "Laboratory evidence on the effectiveness of corporate leniency programs," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 607-616, June.
    33. Robert W. Staiger & Frank A. Wolak, 1992. "Collusive Pricing with Capacity Constraints in the Presence of Demand Uncertainty," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(2), pages 203-220, Summer.
    34. David M. Kreps & Jose A. Scheinkman, 1983. "Quantity Precommitment and Bertrand Competition Yield Cournot Outcomes," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 326-337, Autumn.
    35. Crawford, Vincent, 1998. "A Survey of Experiments on Communication via Cheap Talk," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 78(2), pages 286-298, February.
    36. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    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. Tetsuji Okazaki & Ken Onishi & Naoki Wakamori, 2022. "Excess Capacity And Effectiveness Of Policy Interventions: Evidence From The Cement Industry," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 63(2), pages 883-915, May.
    2. Krämer Jan & Vogelsang Ingo, 2016. "Co-Investments and Tacit Collusion in Regulated Network Industries: Experimental Evidence," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 15(1), pages 35-61, March.
    3. HIGASHIDA Keisaku, 2018. "Subsidies to Public Firms and Competition Modes under a Mixed Duopoly," Discussion papers 18001, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    4. Jan Potters & Sigrid Suetens, 2013. "Oligopoly Experiments In The Current Millennium," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 439-460, July.
    5. Cary Deck & Erik O Kimbrough & Steeve Mongrain, 2014. "Paying for Express Checkout: Competition and Price Discrimination in Multi-Server Queuing Systems," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(3), pages 1-13, March.
    6. Messinger, Paul R., 2016. "The role of fairness in competitive supply chain relationships: An experimental studyAuthor-Name: Choi, Sungchul," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 251(3), pages 798-813.
    7. Deck, Cary & Gu, Jingping, 2012. "Price increasing competition? Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 730-740.
    8. Dechenaux, Emmanuel & Mago, Shakun D., 2019. "Communication and side payments in a duopoly with private costs: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 157-184.

    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. Jan Potters & Sigrid Suetens, 2013. "Oligopoly Experiments In The Current Millennium," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 439-460, July.
    2. Mark Armstrong & Steffen Huck, 2010. "Behavioral Economics as Applied to Firms: A Primer," CESifo Working Paper Series 2937, CESifo.
    3. Gomez-Martinez, Francisco & Onderstal, Sander & Sonnemans, Joep, 2016. "Firm-specific information and explicit collusion in experimental oligopolies," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 132-141.
    4. Jacobs, Martin & Requate, Till, 2016. "Bertrand-Edgeworth markets with increasing marginal costs and voluntary trading: Experimental evidence," Economics Working Papers 2016-01, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    5. Vital Anderhub & Werner Güth & Ulrich Kamecke & Hans-Theo Normann, 2003. "Capacity Choices and Price Competition in Experimental Markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 27-52, June.
    6. Daniel Cracau & Benjamin Franz, 2012. "An experimental study of mixed strategy equilibria in simultaneous price-quantity games," FEMM Working Papers 120017, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    7. Fonseca, Miguel A. & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2012. "Explicit vs. tacit collusion—The impact of communication in oligopoly experiments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1759-1772.
    8. Georg Clemens & Holger A. Rau, 2022. "Either with us or against us: experimental evidence on partial cartels," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(2), pages 237-257, September.
    9. Jason J. Lepore & Aric P. Shafran, 2013. "Consumer Rationing and Cournot Outcomes: Experimental Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(3), pages 727-746, January.
    10. Clemens, Georg & Rau, Holger A., 2014. "Do leniency policies facilitate collusion? Experimental evidence," DICE Discussion Papers 130, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    11. Orland, Andreas & Selten, Reinhard, 2016. "Buyer power in bilateral oligopolies with advance production: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 31-42.
    12. Andreas Freitag & Catherine Roux & Christian Thöni, 2021. "Communication And Market Sharing: An Experiment On The Exchange Of Soft And Hard Information," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 62(1), pages 175-198, February.
    13. Waichman, Israel & Requate, Till & Siang, Ch'ng Kean, 2010. "Pre-play communication in Cournot competition: An experiment with students and managers," Economics Working Papers 2010-09, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    14. Le Coq, Chloé & Sturluson, Jon Thor, 2012. "Does opponents’ experience matter? Experimental evidence from a quantity precommitment game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 265-277.
    15. Switgard Feuerstein, 2005. "Collusion in Industrial Economics—A Survey," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 5(3), pages 163-198, December.
    16. Wenzel, Tobias & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2015. "Shrouding add-on information: an experimental study," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 113149, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. Hinloopen, Jeroen & Onderstal, Sander, 2014. "Going once, going twice, reported! Cartel activity and the effectiveness of antitrust policies in experimental auctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 317-336.
    18. Chowdhury, Subhasish M. & Crede, Carsten J., 2020. "Post-cartel tacit collusion: Determinants, consequences, and prevention," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    19. HIGASHIDA Keisaku, 2018. "Subsidies to Public Firms and Competition Modes under a Mixed Duopoly," Discussion papers 18001, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    20. Rau, Holger & Clemens, Georg, 2014. "Do Leniency Policies facilitate Collusion? Experimental Evidence," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100509, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets

    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:randje:v:43:y:2012:i:1:p:139-166. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/randdus.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.