Inefficient entry order in preemption games
In a preemption game, players decide when to take an irreversible action. Delaying the action exogenously increases payoffs, but there is an early mover advantage. Riordan (1992) shows that in a preemption game with two asymmetric players, players act in decreasing order of efficiency. This provides a microfoundation to the assumption that entry in a market occurs in the order of profitability, commonly used in the empirical analysis of market entry. We provide a counterexample showing that with more than two players this intuitive result can be reversed. We present a preemption game of entry into a new market. The potential entrants are three asymmetric firms: one “efficient” firm with high post-entry profits, and two “inefficient firms”. We show that the set of parameters such that the equilibrium entry order does not reflect the efficiency ranking is nonempty, and analyse which changes in post-entry profits preserve this entry order.
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.
Volume (Year): 48 (2012)
Issue (Month): 6 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jmateco|
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.:
- Heidrun C. Hoppe & Ulrich Lehmann-Grube, 2001. "Second-Mover Advantages in Dynamic Quality Competition," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 10(3), pages 419-433, 09.
- Simon, Leo K & Stinchcombe, Maxwell B, 1989.
"Extensive Form Games in Continuous Time: Pure Strategies,"
Econometric Society, vol. 57(5), pages 1171-1214, September.
- Leo K. Simon and Maxwell B. Stinchcombe., 1987. "Extensive Form Games in Continuous Time: Pure Strategies," Economics Working Papers 8746, University of California at Berkeley.
- Simon, Leo K. & Stinchcombe, Maxwell B., 1987. "Extensive From Games in Continuous Time: Pure Strategies," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt03x115sh, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Bouis, Romain & Huisman, Kuno J.M. & Kort, Peter M., 2009. "Investment in oligopoly under uncertainty: The accordion effect," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 320-331, March.
- Bouis, R. & Huisman, K.J.M. & Kort, P.M., 2006. "Investment in Oligopoly under Uncertainty : The Accordion Effect," Discussion Paper 2006-69, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Dutta, Prajit K & Lach, Saul & Rustichini, Aldo, 1995. "Better Late Than Early: Vertical Differentiation in the Adoption of a New Technology," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(4), pages 563-589, Winter.
- Prajit K. Dutta & Saul Lach & Aldo Rustichini, 1993. "Better Late Than Early: Vertical Differentiation in the Adoption of a New Technology," NBER Working Papers 4473, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Berry, Steven T, 1992. "Estimation of a Model of Entry in the Airline Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 60(4), pages 889-917, July.
- repec:dau:papers:123456789/12655 is not listed on IDEAS
- Mason, Robin & Weeds, Helen, 2010. "Investment, uncertainty and pre-emption," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 278-287, May.
- Hoppe, Heidrun C. & Lehmann-Grube, Ulrich, 2005. "Innovation timing games: a general framework with applications," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 30-50, March.
- Quint, Daniel & Einav, Liran, 2005. "Efficient entry," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 88(2), pages 278-283, August.
- Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1985. "Preemption and Rent Equalization in the Adoption of New Technology," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 52(3), pages 383-401.
- Grzegorz Pawlina & Peter M. Kort, 2006. "Real Options in an Asymmetric Duopoly: Who Benefits from Your Competitive Disadvantage?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(1), pages 1-35, 03.
- Pawlina, G. & Kort, P.M., 2001. "Real Options in an Aymmetric Duopoly : Who Benefits from your Competitive Disadvantage," Discussion Paper 2001-95, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
- Corchón, Luis C., 2008. "Welfare losses under Cournot competition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 1120-1131, September.
- Corchón, Luis C., 2006. "Welfare losses under cournot competition," UC3M Working papers. Economics we063910, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
- repec:esx:essedp:741 is not listed on IDEAS
- Gianluca Femminis & Gianmaria Martini, 2008. "Irreversible R&D investment with inter-firm spillovers," DISCE - Quaderni dell'Istituto di Teoria Economica e Metodi Quantitativi compila la segreteria, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Dipartimenti e Istituti di Scienze Economiche (DISCE). Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)