Competition policy and market leaders
We study the potential loss in social welfare and changes in incentives to invest in R&D that result when the market leading firm is deprived of its position. We show that under plausible assumptions like free entry or repeated market interactions there is a social value of market leadership and its mechanical removal by means of competition policy is likely to be harmful for society.
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
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.:
- Federico Etro, 2008.
"Stackelberg Competition with Endogenous Entry,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(532), pages 1670-1697, October.
- Deneckere, Raymond J & Kovenock, Dan & Lee, Robert, 1992.
"A Model of Price Leadership Based on Consumer Loyalty,"
Journal of Industrial Economics,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 147-156, June.
- Deneckere, R. & Kovenock, D. & Lee, R.E., 1988. "A Model of Price Leadership Based on Consumer Loyalty," Purdue University Economics Working Papers 947, Purdue University, Department of Economics.
- van Damme, E.E.C. & Hurkens, J.P.M., 1999.
"Endogenous Stackelberg leadership,"
Other publications TiSEM
83a05fd8-4285-48f3-84ef-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
- Eric van Damme & Sjaak Hurkens, 1996. "Endogenous Stackelberg leadership," Economics Working Papers 190, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
- van Damme, E.E.C. & Hurkens, J.P.M., 1996. "Endogenous Stackelberg Leadership," Discussion Paper 1996-115, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- John Vickers, 2009.
"Competition Policy and Property Rights,"
Economics Series Working Papers
436, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Constantinos Syropoulos, 1994. "Endogenous Timing in Games of Commercial Policy," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 27(4), pages 847-864, November.
- Motta,Massimo, 2004.
Cambridge University Press, number 9780521016919, December.
- Boone, J., 2003.
"'Be nice, unless it pays to fight' : A new theory of price determination with implications for competition policy,"
2003-011, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
- Jan Boone, 2002. "’Be nice, unless it pays to fight’: A New Theory of Price Determination with Implications for Competition Policy," CIG Working Papers FS IV 02-18, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
- Boone, Jan, 2002. "'Be Nice, Unless it Pays to Fight': A New Theory of Price Determination with Implications for Competition Policy," CEPR Discussion Papers 3342, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Boone, J., 2002. "'Be Nice Unless it Pays to Fight' : A New Theory of Price Determination with Implications for Competition Policy," Discussion Paper 2002-23, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Spence, Michael, 1976. "Product Differentiation and Welfare," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 407-414, May.
- Boone, Jan, 2004.
"Balance of Power,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
4733, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Richard J. Gilbert & Michael L. Katz, 2001.
"An Economist's Guide to U.S. v. Microsoft,"
- Gilbert, Richard & Katz, Michael, 2001. "An Economist's Guide to U.S. v Microsoft," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt7kj1x7g9, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Richard J. Gilbert and Michael L. Katz., 2001. "An Economist's Guide to U.S. v. Microsoft," Economics Working Papers E01-300, University of California at Berkeley.
- Gilbert, Richard J & Katz, Michael, 2001. "An Economist's Guide to U.S. v. Microsoft," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt56f8p06q, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Hamilton, J.H. & Slutsky, S.M., 1988.
"Endogenous Timing In Duopoly Games: Stackelberg Or Cournot Equilibria,"
88-4, Florida - College of Business Administration.
- 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.
- Czarnitzki, Dirk & Etro, Federico Gabriele & Kraft, Kornelius, 2008.
"The Effect of Entry on R&D Investment of Leaders: Theory and Empirical Evidence,"
ZEW Discussion Papers
08-078, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
- Dirk Czarnitzki & Federico Etro & Kornelius Kraft, 2009. "The Effect of Entry on R&D Investment of Leaders: Theory and Empirical Evidence," Working Papers 163, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised May 2009.
- Federico Etro, 2006. "Market Leaders and Industrial Policy," Working Papers 103, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Nov 2006.
- Federico Etro, 2004. "Innovation by leaders," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 281-303, 04.
- Syropoulos, Constantinos, 1996. "Nontariff Trade Controls and Leader-Follower Relations in International Competition," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 63(252), pages 633-648, November.
- Rotemberg, Julio J & Saloner, Garth, 1990. "Collusive Price Leadership," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 93-111, September.
- Benjamin Klein, 2001. "The Microsoft Case: What Can a Dominant Firm Do to Defend Its Market Position?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 45-62, Spring.
- Michael D. Whinston, 2001. "Exclusivity and Tying in U.S. v. Microsoft: What We Know, and Don't Know," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 63-80, Spring.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecmode:v:28:y:2011:i:3:p:1042-1049. 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: (Dana Niculescu)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.