IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/indorg/v18y2000i6p975-984.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Weak entrants are welcome

Author

Listed:
  • Ashiya, Masahiro

Abstract

This paper investigates the decision problem of an incumbent firm confronted by both a weak and a strong entrant in a differentiated market. Suppose that the incumbent can deter entry of the weak firm, but cannot deter entry of the strong firm by itself. Then the incumbent may allow entry of the weak firm and use it to alter the strong firm's entry decision. The present paper formalizes this idea, and it sheds new light on the fact that domestic firms are sometimes able to block strong foreign firms after trade loberalization. The idea also expalins why a dominant firm lets fringe firms be in the market.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Ashiya, Masahiro, 2000. "Weak entrants are welcome," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 975-984, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:indorg:v:18:y:2000:i:6:p:975-984
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-7187(99)00021-1
    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

    as
    1. Crampes, Claude & Hollander, Abraham, 1993. "Umbrella Pricing to Attract Early Entry," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 60(240), pages 465-474, November.
    2. Berck, Peter & Perloff, Jeffrey M., 1988. "The dynamic annihilation of a rational competitive fringe by a low-cost dominant firm," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 659-678, November.
    3. Elie Appelbaum & Chin Lim, 1985. "Contestable Markets under Uncertainty," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 28-40, Spring.
    4. Giacomo Bonanno, 1987. "Location Choice, Product Proliferation and Entry Deterrence," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 54(1), pages 37-45.
    5. Brander, James A & Eaton, Jonathan, 1984. "Product Line Rivalry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(3), pages 323-334, June.
    6. Martinez-Giralt, Xavier & Neven, Damien J, 1988. "Can Price Competition Dominate Market Segmentation?," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 36(4), pages 431-442, June.
    7. Richard Schmalensee, 1978. "Entry Deterrence in the Ready-to-Eat Breakfast Cereal Industry," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 305-327, Autumn.
    8. Ashiya, M., 1999. "Brand Proliferation is Useless to Deter Entry," ISER Discussion Paper 0476, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    9. Richard Gilbert & Xavier Vives, 1986. "Entry Deterrence and the Free Rider Problem," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 53(1), pages 71-83.
    10. Neven, Damien J., 1987. "Endogenous sequential entry in a spatial model," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 419-434.
    11. Edward C. Prescott & Michael Visscher, 1977. "Sequential Location among Firms with Foresight," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 8(2), pages 378-393, Autumn.
    12. Gillian K. Hadfield, 1991. "Credible Spatial Preemption through Franchising," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 22(4), pages 531-543, Winter.
    13. Ashiya, Masahiro, 2000. "Weak entrants are welcome," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 975-984, August.
    14. Gallini, Nancy T, 1984. "Deterrence by Market Sharing: A Strategic Incentive for Licensing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(5), pages 931-941, December.
    15. Vives, Xavier, 1988. "Sequential entry, industry structure and welfare," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(8), pages 1671-1687, October.
    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. Kitamura, Hiroshi, 2010. "Exclusionary vertical contracts with multiple entrants," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 213-219, May.
    2. Laura Magazzini & Fabio Pammolli & Massimo Riccaboni, 2004. "Dynamic competition in pharmaceuticals," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 5(2), pages 175-182, May.
    3. Laura Magazzini & Fabio Pammolli & Gianluca Papa & Nicola Carmine Salerno, 2005. "Generici vs. Branded: confronto internazionale su prodotti off-patent rimborsati dal SSN," Working Papers CERM 01-2005, Competitività, Regole, Mercati (CERM).
    4. Toshihiro Matsumura & Noriaki Matsushima, 2009. "Cost differentials and mixed strategy equilibria in a Hotelling model," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 43(1), pages 215-234, March.
    5. Hiroshi Kitamura, 2008. "Exclusionary Vertical Contracts with Multiple Entrants," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 08-39, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics and Osaka School of International Public Policy (OSIPP).
    6. Jun, Byoung Heon & Park, In-Uck, 2010. "Anti-Limit Pricing," Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 51(2), pages 1-22, December.
    7. Ashiya, M., 1999. "Brand Proliferation is Useless to Deter Entry," ISER Discussion Paper 0476, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    8. Heide Coenen, 2000. "Network Effects in Telecommunications: When Entrants are Welcome," Discussion Papers 241, Government Institute for Economic Research Finland (VATT).
    9. Ishibashi, Ikuo, 2003. "A note on credible spatial entry deterrence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 283-289, February.
    10. Ashiya, Masahiro, 2000. "Weak entrants are welcome," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 975-984, August.
    11. Murooka, Takeshi, 2013. "A note on credible spatial preemption in an entry–exit game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 26-28.
    12. Magazzini, Laura & Pammolli, Fabio & Riccaboni, Massimo, 2004. "Dynamic Competition in Pharmaceuticals: Patent Expiry, Generic Penetration, and Industry Structure," MPRA Paper 15968, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Aidan Hollis, 2003. "The Anti-Competitive Effects of Brand-Controlled "Pseudo- Generics" in the Canadian Pharmaceutical Market," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 29(1), pages 21-31, March.
    14. Xiao, Tiaojun & Qi, Xiangtong, 2010. "Strategic wholesale pricing in a supply chain with a potential entrant," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 202(2), pages 444-455, April.
    15. Zhou, Yong-Wu & Cao, Zong-Hong & Zhong, Yuanguang, 2015. "Pricing and alliance selection for a dominant retailer with an upstream entry," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 243(1), pages 211-223.
    16. Junichiro Ishida & Toshihiro Matsumura & Noriaki Matsushima, 2011. "Market Competition, R&D And Firm Profits In Asymmetric Oligopoly," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 484-505, September.
    17. Istaitieh, Abdulaziz & Rodriguez-Fernandez, Jose M., 2006. "Factor-product markets and firm's capital structure: A literature review," Review of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 49-75.
    18. Bong-Ju Kim & Inho Chung, 2010. "Inter-Market Competition Through Bundling In The Presence Of Cost Advantage," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 61(1), pages 116-132.
    19. Ikuo Ishibashi & Noriaki Matsushima, 2006. "Inviting entrants may help incumbent firms," Discussion Papers 2006-46, Kobe University, Graduate School of Business Administration.
    20. Arijit Mukherjee & Achintya Ray, 2014. "Entry, Profit and Welfare under Asymmetric R&D Costs," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 82(3), pages 284-295, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations
    • 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:eee:indorg:v:18:y:2000:i:6:p:975-984. 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) or (). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505551 .

    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.