IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic and welfare implications of bundling


  • Martin, Stephen


A standard oligopoly model of bundling shows that bundling by a firm with a monopoly over one product has a strategic effect because it changes the substitution relationships between the goods among which consumers choose. Bundling in appropriate proportions is privately profitable, reduces rivals´ profits and overall welfare, and may drive rivals from the market.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Martin, Stephen, 1999. "Strategic and welfare implications of bundling," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 62(3), pages 371-376, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:62:y:1999:i:3:p:371-376

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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

    1. Schmalensee, Richard, 1984. "Gaussian Demand and Commodity Bundling," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(1), pages 211-230, January.
    2. Margaret E. Slade, 1998. "The Leverage Theory of Tying Revisited: Evidence from Newspaper Advertising," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(2), pages 204-222, October.
    3. Spence, Michael, 1976. "Product Differentiation and Welfare," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 407-414, May.
    4. William James Adams & Janet L. Yellen, 1976. "Commodity Bundling and the Burden of Monopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 90(3), pages 475-498.
    5. Slade, M. E., 1995. "The Leverage Theory of Tying Revisited," G.R.E.Q.A.M. 97b02, Universite Aix-Marseille III.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Vaubourg, Anne-Gael, 2006. "Differentiation and discrimination in a duopoly with two bundles," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 753-762, July.
    2. Hinloopen, Jeroen & Müller, Wieland & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2014. "Output commitment through product bundling: Experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 164-180.
    3. Wei, Jie & Zhao, Jing & Li, Yongjian, 2013. "Pricing decisions for complementary products with firms’ different market powers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 224(3), pages 507-519.
    4. Andrea Mantovani & Jan Vandekerckhove, 2016. "The Strategic Interplay Between Bundling and Merging in Complementary Markets," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 37(1), pages 19-36, January.
    5. repec:spr:scient:v:114:y:2018:i:1:d:10.1007_s11192-017-2564-y is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Daniel Flores Curiel, 2010. "La regulación del tamaño de los lotes habitacionales: un modelo de discriminación de precios," Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos, vol. 25(2), pages 407-424.
    7. Oliver Budzinski & Katharina Wacker, 2007. "The Prohibition Of The Proposed Springer-Prosiebensat.1 Merger: How Much Economics In German Merger Control?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 281-306.
    8. Andrea Mantovani, 2013. "The Strategic Effect of Bundling: A New Perspective," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 42(1), pages 25-43, February.
    9. Akifumi Ishihara & Noriyuki Yanagawa, 2013. "Dark Sides of Patent Pools with Compulsory Independent Licensing," CARF F-Series CARF-F-318, Center for Advanced Research in Finance, Faculty of Economics, The University of Tokyo.
    10. Tina Kao & Flavio Menezes, 2006. "Bundling and Foreclosure," ANU Working Papers in Economics and Econometrics 2006-478, Australian National University, College of Business and Economics, School of Economics.
    11. Gayer, Amit & Shy, Oz, 2016. "A welfare evaluation of tying strategies," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 623-637.
    12. Yue, Xiaohang & Mukhopadhyay, Samar K. & Zhu, Xiaowei, 2006. "A Bertrand model of pricing of complementary goods under information asymmetry," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 59(10-11), pages 1182-1192, October.
    13. Mukhopadhyay, Samar K. & Yue, Xiaohang & Zhu, Xiaowei, 2011. "A Stackelberg model of pricing of complementary goods under information asymmetry," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 134(2), pages 424-433, December.
    14. Chung, Hui-Ling & Chen, Hung-Yi & Hu, Jin-Li & Lin, Yan-Shu, 2014. "Bundling With Quality Choice," Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 55(2), pages 147-165, December.
    15. Baranes, Edmond & Podesta, Marion & Poudou, Jean-Christophe, 2016. "Mixed bundling may hinder collusion," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 638-658.
    16. Orbay, Hakan, 2009. "Computing Cournot equilibrium through maximization over prices," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 105(1), pages 71-73, October.
    17. Hui-Ling Chung & Yan-Shu Lin & Jin-Li Hu, 2013. "Bundling strategy and product differentiation," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 207-229, April.
    18. Alain Egli, 2007. "On Stability in Competition: Tying and Horizontal Product Differentiation," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 30(1), pages 29-38, February.
    19. Cooper, James C. & Froeb, Luke M. & O'Brien, Dan & Vita, Michael G., 2005. "Vertical antitrust policy as a problem of inference," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(7-8), pages 639-664, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices


    Access and download statistics


    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:eee:ecolet:v:62:y:1999:i:3:p:371-376. 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). General contact details of provider: .

    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.