IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/amerec/v46y2002i1p36-41.html

A Simple Algebraic Approach to Teaching Oligopoly Models

Author

Listed:
  • Ananish Chaudhuri

Abstract

This paper develops simple algebraic model which provides a new perspective on (1) how we teach the interaction between firms in a Stackelberg model; and (2) how the same framework can be extended to a discussion on entry into an industry. Besides providing a different approach to teaching the Stackelberg model, my framework has the additional advantage that it is intuitive, technically simple and thus readily accessible to students who may not have a background in calculus.

Suggested Citation

  • Ananish Chaudhuri, 2002. "A Simple Algebraic Approach to Teaching Oligopoly Models," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 46(1), pages 36-41, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:amerec:v:46:y:2002:i:1:p:36-41
    DOI: 10.1177/056943450204600105
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/056943450204600105
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/056943450204600105?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Aoki, Reiko & Prusa, Thomas J., 1996. "Product Development and the Timing of Information Disclosure under U.S. and Japanese Patent Systems," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 10(3), pages 233-249, September.
    2. Aoki, Reiko & Prusa, Thomas J., 1997. "Sequential versus simultaneous choice with endogenous quality," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 103-121, February.
    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. Carlos J. Asarta & Austin S. Jennings & Paul W. Grimes, 2017. "Economic Education Retrospective," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 62(1), pages 102-117, March.

    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. Kamal Saggi, 2016. "Trade, Intellectual Property Rights, and the World Trade Organization," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 16-00014, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    2. L. Lambertini & P. Tedeschi, 2003. "Sequential Entry in a Vertically Differentiated Duopoly," Working Papers 492, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    3. Zhongmiao Sun & Jinrong Liu, 2023. "Impacts of differentiated services and competition on the pricing strategies of ride‐hailing platforms," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(6), pages 3604-3624, September.
    4. Jean Gabszewicz & Ornella Tarola, 2012. "Product innovation and firms’ ownership," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 323-343, April.
    5. Aoki, R. & Spiegel, Y., 1998. "Public Disclosure of Patent Applications, R&D, and Welfare," Papers 30-98, Tel Aviv.
    6. Rabah Amir & Filomena Garcia & Malgorzata Knauff, 2006. "Endogenous Heterogeneity in Strategic Models: Symmetry-breaking via Strategic Substitutes and Nonconcavities," Working Papers Department of Economics 2006/29, ISEG - Lisbon School of Economics and Management, Department of Economics, Universidade de Lisboa.
    7. Ann Horowitz & Ira Horowitz, 1999. "Quality choice: Does it matter which workers own and manage the cooperative firm?," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 27(4), pages 394-409, December.
    8. Johnson, Daniel K N & Popp, David, 2003. "Forced Out of the Closet: The Impact of the American Inventors Protection Act on the Timing of Patent Disclosure," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(1), pages 96-112, Spring.
    9. Toshimitsu, Tsuyoshi, 2008. "Effect of a tariff on the environment and welfare: The case of an environmental differentiated duopoly in a Green Market," Japan and the World Economy, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 114-128, January.
    10. Ram Kumar Phuyal, 2016. "Imposition of R&D Subsidy in a Product Differentiated Duopolistic Industry," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 6(6), pages 336-351, June.
    11. Enrico Pennings, 2004. "Optimal Pricing And Quality Choice When Investment In Quality Is Irreversible," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(4), pages 569-589, December.
    12. Deepak Hegde & Hong Luo, 2018. "Patent Publication and the Market for Ideas," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(2), pages 652-672, February.
    13. Tamini, Lota D., 2012. "Optimal quality choice under uncertainty on market development," MPRA Paper 40845, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Laurent Reynald-Alexandre, 2006. "Choice of new attributes in the 'Elimination by Aspects' duopoly," Working Papers halshs-00590311, HAL.
    15. Su, Meng & Rao, Vithala R., 2011. "Timing decisions of new product preannouncement and launch with competition," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 129(1), pages 51-64, January.
    16. Lambertini, Luca & Tampieri, Alessandro, 2013. "Endogenous timing in quality choices and price competition," Economics Discussion Papers 2013-37, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    17. Toshimitsu, Tsuyoshi, 2003. "Optimal R&D policy and endogenous quality choice," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(8), pages 1159-1178, October.
    18. Jaffe, Adam B., 2000. "The U.S. patent system in transition: policy innovation and the innovation process," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(4-5), pages 531-557, April.
    19. 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, September.

    More about this item

    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:sae:amerec:v:46:y:2002:i:1:p:36-41. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://journals.sagepub.com/home/aex .

    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.