IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this article

Spatial competition in a mixed duopoly with one partially nationalized firm


  • Kumar, Ashutosh
  • Saha, Bibhas


This paper analyzes the effects of partial public ownership on product differentiation and social welfare in the framework of a mixed duopoly with spatial competition. It shows that unless the public ownership exceeds a critical level, maximal differentiation continues to hold and social welfare does not improve. However, both the critical level of ownership and the marginal effect of ownership on welfare vary between different types of the partially public firm, where the types relate to different decision making mechanisms. Next, when the partially public firm has higher production cost, it responds to nationalization less vigorously than the private firm. Journal of Comparative Economics 36 (2) (2008) 326-341.

Suggested Citation

  • Kumar, Ashutosh & Saha, Bibhas, 2008. "Spatial competition in a mixed duopoly with one partially nationalized firm," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 326-341, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jcecon:v:36:y:2008:i:2:p:326-341

    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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Anderson, Simon P. & de Palma, Andre & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 1997. "Privatization and efficiency in a differentiated industry," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 41(9), pages 1635-1654, December.
    2. Simeon Djankov & Peter Murrell, 2002. "Enterprise Restructuring in Transition: A Quantitative Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 40(3), pages 739-792, September.
    3. Fershtman, Chaim, 1990. "The Interdependence between Ownership Status and Market Structure: The Case of Privatization," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 57(227), pages 319-328, August.
    4. Zhang, Mingxia & Sexton, Richard J, 2001. "FOB or Uniform Delivered Prices: Strategic Choice and Welfare Effects," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(2), pages 197-221, June.
    5. Kenneth Fjell & Debashis Pal, 1996. "A Mixed Oligopoly in the Presence of Foreign Private Firms," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 737-743, August.
    6. Cremer, Helmuth & Marchand, Maurice & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 1991. "Mixed oligopoly with differentiated products," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 9(1), pages 43-53, March.
    7. Nandini Gupta, 2005. "Partial Privatization and Firm Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 60(2), pages 987-1015, April.
    8. Matsushima, Noriaki, 2001. "Cournot competition and spatial agglomeration revisited," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 175-177, November.
    9. Maria Paz Espinosa, 1992. "Delivered Pricing, FOB Pricing, and Collusion in Spatial Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(1), pages 64-85, Spring.
    10. d'Aspremont, C & Gabszewicz, Jean Jaskold & Thisse, J-F, 1979. "On Hotelling's "Stability in Competition"," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(5), pages 1145-1150, September.
    11. Juan Carlos Bárcena-Ruiz & María Begoña Garzón, 2003. "Mixed Duopoly, Merger and Multiproduct Firms," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 80(1), pages 27-42, August.
    12. Lorenz NETT, 1993. "Mixed Oligopoly With Homogeneous Goods," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 367-393, July.
    13. Toshihiro Matsumura & Noriaki Matsushima, 2003. "Mixed Duopoly with Product Differentiation: Sequential Choice of Location," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 42(1), pages 18-34, March.
    14. White, Mark D., 1996. "Mixed oligopoly, privatization and subsidization," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 189-195, November.
    15. Matsumura, Toshihiro, 1998. "Partial privatization in mixed duopoly," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(3), pages 473-483, December.
    16. Pal, Debashis, 1998. "Does Cournot competition yield spatial agglomeration?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 49-53, July.
    17. Pal, Debashis & Sarkar, Jyotirmoy, 2002. "Spatial competition among multi-store firms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(2), pages 163-190, February.
    18. Bennett, John & Maw, James, 2003. "Privatization, partial state ownership, and competition," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 58-74, March.
    19. Toshihiro Matsumura & Noriaki Matsushima, 2004. "Endogenous Cost Differentials between Public and Private Enterprises: A Mixed Duopoly Approach," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 71(284), pages 671-688, November.
    20. Ishibashi, Ikuo & Matsumura, Toshihiro, 2006. "R&D competition between public and private sectors," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(6), pages 1347-1366, August.
    21. Abarbanell, Jeffery S. & Bonin, John P., 1997. "Bank Privatization in Poland: The Case of Bank Slaski," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 31-61, August.
    22. Pal, Debashis, 1998. "Endogenous timing in a mixed oligopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 181-185, November.
    23. Noriaki Matsushima & Toshihiro Matsumura, 2003. "Mixed oligopoly and spatial agglomeration," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(1), pages 62-87, February.
    24. Debashis Pal & Mark D. White, 1998. "Mixed Oligopoly, Privatization, and Strategic Trade Policy," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(2), pages 264-281, October.
    25. Bibhas Saha & Rudra Sensarma, 2004. "Divestment and Bank Competition," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 81(3), pages 223-247, March.
    26. de Fraja, Giovanni & Delbono, Flavio, 1989. "Alternative Strategies of a Public Enterprise in Oligopoly," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(2), pages 302-311, April.
    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. Wang, Leonard F.S. & Tomaru, Yoshihiro, 2015. "The feasibility of privatization and foreign penetration," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 36-46.
    2. Wang, Leonard F.S. & Chen, Tai-Liang, 2011. "Mixed oligopoly, optimal privatization, and foreign penetration," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 1465-1470, July.
    3. Toshihiro Matsumura & Daisuke Shimizu, 2010. "Privatization Waves," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 78(6), pages 609-625, December.
    4. Francisco Martínez-Sánchez & Miguel González-Maestre, 2010. "The role of program quality and publicly-owned platforms in the free to air broadcasting industry," Working Papers. Serie AD 2010-19, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    5. repec:eee:reveco:v:49:y:2017:i:c:p:58-68 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. repec:bla:manchs:v:85:y:2017:i:3:p:339-356 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Eleftheriou, Konstantinos & Michelacakis, Nickolas, 2015. "A Unified Model of Spatial Price Discrimination," MPRA Paper 66557, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Rupayan Pal, 2010. "How much should you own? Cross-ownership and privatization," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2010-015, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    9. Rupayan Pal & Bibhas Saha, 2011. "Environmental outcomes in a model of mixed duopoly," University of East Anglia Applied and Financial Economics Working Paper Series 030, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    10. Chen, Chien-Hsun & Mai, Chao-Cheng & Liu, Yu-Lin & Mai, Shin-Ying, 2009. "Privatization and optimal share release in the Chinese banking industry," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1161-1171, November.
    11. Rupayan Pal & Bibhas Saha, 2010. "Does Partial Privatization Improve the Environment?," Working Papers id:3122, eSocialSciences.
    12. Joaquín Andaluz, 2011. "Validity of the “Principle of Maximum Product Differentiation” in a unionized mixed-duopoly," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 102(2), pages 123-136, March.
    13. Eleftheriou, Konstantinos & Michelacakis, Nickolas, 2017. "Spatial Price Discrimination and Privatization on Vertically Related Markets," MPRA Paper 76964, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Rupayan Pal, 2010. "How Much Should You Own? Cross-ownership and Privatization," Working Papers id:2810, eSocialSciences.
    15. Arghya Ghosh & Manipushpak Mitra & Bibhas Saha, 2015. "Privatization, Underpricing, and Welfare in the Presence of Foreign Competition," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 17(3), pages 433-460, June.
    16. Bibhas Saha, 2009. "Mixed ownership in a mixed duopoly with differentiated products," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 98(1), pages 25-43, September.
    17. Martínez-Sánchez, Francisco, 2014. "Privatization Policies by National and Regional Governments," MPRA Paper 58836, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Juan Bárcena Ruiz & F. Casado-Izaga & Hamid Hamoudi, 2014. "Optimal zoning of a mixed duopoly," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 52(1), pages 141-153, January.
    19. Miguel González-Maestre & Francisco Martínez-Sánchez, 2014. "The role of platform quality and publicly owned platforms in the free-to-air broadcasting industry," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 105-124, March.

    More about this item


    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:jcecon:v:36:y:2008:i:2:p:326-341. 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.