IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/revind/v48y2016i3d10.1007_s11151-015-9487-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competition, Cost Innovation, and X-inefficiency in Experimental Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Smyth

    (Chapman University)

Abstract

This paper examines the relationship between competition, cost innovation, and x-inefficiency in experimental markets. In the lab, oligopolists make closer-to-optimal cost innovation expenditures than do monopolists, which result in lower x-inefficiency in oligopoly than in monopoly. Oligopolies also increase total surplus relative to monopoly, and consumer surplus makes up a larger portion of total surplus in oligopoly than monopoly. The data illustrate how x-inefficiency affects surplus dynamically and suggest price as a mechanism by which competitive pressure increases cost efficiency.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Smyth, 2016. "Competition, Cost Innovation, and X-inefficiency in Experimental Markets," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 48(3), pages 307-331, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:revind:v:48:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11151-015-9487-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s11151-015-9487-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11151-015-9487-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11151-015-9487-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leibenstein, Harvey, 1978. "On the Basic Proposition of X-Efficiency Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 68(2), pages 328-332, May.
    2. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    3. Donja Darai & Dario Sacco & Armin Schmutzler, 2010. "Competition and innovation: an experimental investigation," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 13(4), pages 439-460, December.
    4. Parish, Ross M & Ng, Yew-Kwang, 1972. "Monopoly, X-Efficiency and the Measurement of Welfare Loss," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 39(155), pages 301-308, August.
    5. Martin, Stephen, 2010. "Industrial Organization in Context," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199291199, Decembrie.
    6. Philippe Aghion & Stefan Bechtold & Lea Cassar & Holger Herz, 2018. "The Causal Effects of Competition on Innovation: Experimental Evidence," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 162-195.
    7. Isaac, R. Mark & Reynolds, Stanley S., 1992. "Schumpeterian competition in experimental markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 59-100, January.
    8. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    9. Comanor, William S, 1969. "Allocative Efficiency, X-Efficiency and the Measurement of Welfare Losses," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 36(143), pages 304-309, August.
    10. Stigler, George J, 1976. "The Xistence of X-Efficiency," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(1), pages 213-216, March.
    11. Sacco, Dario & Schmutzler, Armin, 2011. "Is there a U-shaped relation between competition and investment?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 65-73, January.
    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. Andrew Smyth, 2017. "How Product Innovation Can Affect Price Collusion," Working Papers 17-26, Chapman University, Economic Science Institute.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ioannou, Christos A. & Makris, Miltiadis & Ornaghi, Carmine, 2021. "R&D productivity and the nexus between product substitutability and innovation: Theory and experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 186(C), pages 135-151.
    2. John Formby & James Keeler & Paul Thistle, 1988. "X-efficiency, rent-seeking and social costs," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 57(2), pages 115-126, May.
    3. Philippe Aghion & Stefan Bechtold & Lea Cassar & Holger Herz, 2018. "The Causal Effects of Competition on Innovation: Experimental Evidence," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 162-195.
    4. Schmidt, Klaus M. & Fey, Lisa & Thoma, Carmen, 2017. "Competition and incentives," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 111-125.
    5. Acconcia Antonio & Beraldo Sergio & Capuano Carlo & Stimolo Marco, 2023. "Public Subsidies and Cooperation in Research and Development. Evidence from the LAB," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 23(3), pages 727-760, July.
    6. Matthew R. Roelofs & Stein E. Østbye & Eirik E. Heen, 2017. "Asymmetric firms, technology sharing and R&D investment," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 20(3), pages 574-600, September.
    7. Cortney S. Rodet & Andrew Smyth, 2020. "Competitive blind spots and the cyclicality of investment: Experimental evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 87(1), pages 274-315, July.
    8. Wendelin Schnedler & Nina Lucia Stephan, 2020. "Revisiting a Remedy Against Chains of Unkindness," Schmalenbach Business Review, Springer;Schmalenbach-Gesellschaft, vol. 72(3), pages 347-364, July.
    9. Kyung Hwan Baik & Subhasish M. Chowdhury & Abhijit Ramalingam, 2021. "Group size and matching protocol in contests," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(4), pages 1716-1736, November.
    10. David J. Cooper & Krista Saral & Marie Claire Villeval, 2021. "Why Join a Team?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(11), pages 6980-6997, November.
    11. Zakaria Babutsidze & Nobuyuki Hanaki & Adam Zylbersztejn, 2019. "Digital Communication and Swift Trust," Post-Print halshs-02409314, HAL.
    12. Galliera, Arianna, 2018. "Self-selecting random or cumulative pay? A bargaining experiment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 106-120.
    13. Gächter, Simon & Starmer, Chris & Tufano, Fabio, 2022. "Measuring "Group Cohesion" to Reveal the Power of Social Relationships in Team Production," IZA Discussion Papers 15512, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Cornaglia, Francesca & Drouvelis, Michalis & Masella, Paolo, 2019. "Competition and the role of group identity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 136-145.
    15. Gantner, Anita & Horn, Kristian & Kerschbamer, Rudolf, 2016. "Fair and efficient division through unanimity bargaining when claims are subjective," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 56-73.
    16. Buser, Thomas & Ranehill, Eva & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2021. "Gender differences in willingness to compete: The role of public observability," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    17. Martin G. Kocher & Fangfang Tan & Jing Yu, 2018. "Providing Global Public Goods: Electoral Delegation And Cooperation," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(1), pages 381-397, January.
    18. Kessel, Dany & Mollerstrom, Johanna & van Veldhuizen, Roel, 2021. "Can simple advice eliminate the gender gap in willingness to compete?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 138, pages 1-1.
    19. Fischbacher, Urs & Kübler, Dorothea & Stüber, Robert, 2022. "Betting on diversity: Occupational segregation and gender stereotypes," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2022-207, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    20. Matthew Embrey & Friederike Mengel & Ronald Peeters, 2019. "Strategy revision opportunities and collusion," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 22(4), pages 834-856, December.

    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:kap:revind:v:48:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s11151-015-9487-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.