IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/reecde/v20y2016i4d10.1007_s10058-016-0193-1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Vertical syndication-proof competitive prices in multilateral assignment markets

Author

Listed:
  • O. Tejada

    (ETH Zurich)

  • M. Álvarez-Mozos

    (Universitat de Barcelona)

Abstract

We consider a market comprising a number of perfectly complementary and homogeneous commodities. We concentrate on the incentives for firms producing these commodities to merge and form a vertical syndicate. The main result establishes that the nucleolus of the associated market game corresponds to the unique vector of prices with the following properties: (i) they are vertical syndication-proof, (ii) they are competitive, (iii) they yield the average of the buyers- and the sellers-optimal allocations in bilateral markets, and (iv) they depend on the traders’ bargaining power but not on their identity. The proof uses an isomorphism between our class of market games and the entire class of bankruptcy games.

Suggested Citation

  • O. Tejada & M. Álvarez-Mozos, 2016. "Vertical syndication-proof competitive prices in multilateral assignment markets," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 20(4), pages 289-327, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:reecde:v:20:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s10058-016-0193-1
    DOI: 10.1007/s10058-016-0193-1
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10058-016-0193-1
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10058-016-0193-1?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. ,, 2001. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(6), pages 1157-1160, December.
    2. Gardner, Roy, 1977. "Shapley value and disadvantageous monopolies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 16(2), pages 513-517, December.
    3. Stuart, Harborne Jr, 1997. "The supplier-firm-buyer game and its m-sided generalization," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 21-27, August.
    4. Nir Dagan, 1996. "New characterizations of old bankruptcy rules," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 13(1), pages 51-59, January.
    5. Nicholas Economides, 2001. "The Microsoft Antitrust Case," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 7-39, March.
    6. Quint, Thomas, 1991. "The core of an m-sided assignment game," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 487-503, November.
    7. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    8. Stephen W. Salant & Sheldon Switzer & Robert J. Reynolds, 1983. "Losses From Horizontal Merger: The Effects of an Exogenous Change in Industry Structure on Cournot-Nash Equilibrium," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 98(2), pages 185-199.
    9. Guesnerie, Roger, 1977. "Monopoly, syndicate, and shapley value: About some conjectures," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 235-251, August.
    10. Milliou, Chrysovalantou & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 2007. "Upstream horizontal mergers, vertical contracts, and bargaining," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 963-987, October.
    11. Peter Knudsen & Lars Østerdal, 2012. "Merging and splitting in cooperative games: some (im)possibility results," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 41(4), pages 763-774, November.
    12. Ilya Segal, 2003. "Collusion, Exclusion, and Inclusion in Random-Order Bargaining," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(2), pages 439-460.
    13. Daniel Granot & Frieda Granot, 1992. "On Some Network Flow Games," Mathematics of Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 17(4), pages 792-841, November.
    14. Thomson, William, 2015. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: An update," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 41-59.
    15. Dubey, Pradeep & Mas-Colell, Andreau & Shubik, Martin, 1980. "Efficiency properties of strategies market games: An axiomatic approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 339-362, April.
    16. Oriol Tejada, 2013. "Analysis of the core of multisided Böhm-Bawerk assignment markets," TOP: An Official Journal of the Spanish Society of Statistics and Operations Research, Springer;Sociedad de Estadística e Investigación Operativa, vol. 21(1), pages 189-205, April.
    17. Postlewaite, Andrew & Rosenthal, Robert W., 1974. "Disadvantageous syndicates," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 9(3), pages 324-326, November.
    18. Adam Brandenburger & Harborne Stuart, 2007. "Biform Games," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 53(4), pages 537-549, April.
    19. Francis Bloch & Sayantan Ghosal, 2000. "original papers : Buyers' and sellers' cartels on markets with indivisible goods," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 5(2), pages 129-147.
    20. Okuno, Masahiro & Postlewaite, Andrew & Roberts, John, 1980. "Oligopoly and Competition in Large Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(1), pages 22-31, March.
    21. Einy, Ezra & Moreno, Diego & Shitovitz, Benyamin, 1999. "The Asymptotic Nucleolus of Large Monopolistic Market Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 186-206, December.
    22. Marina Núñez & Carles Rafels, 2005. "The Böhm–Bawerk horse market: a cooperative analysis," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 33(3), pages 421-430, September.
    23. Fershtman, Chaim & Gandal, Neil, 1994. "Disadvantageous semicollusion," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 141-154, June.
    24. Oriol Tejada & Marina Núñez, 2012. "The nucleolus and the core-center of multi-sided Böhm-Bawerk assignment markets," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 75(2), pages 199-220, April.
    25. Michael F. Sproul, 2009. "Antitrust and Prices," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 2, pages 84-95, April.
    26. ,, 2001. "Problems And Solutions," Econometric Theory, Cambridge University Press, vol. 17(5), pages 1025-1031, October.
    27. Inderst, Roman & Wey, Christian, 2007. "Buyer power and supplier incentives," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 647-667, April.
    28. Legros, Patrick, 1987. "Disadvantageous syndicates and stable cartels: The case of the nucleolus," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 30-49, June.
    29. Kaneko, Mamoru & Wooders, Myrna Holtz, 1982. "Cores of partitioning games," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 313-327, December.
    30. Thomson, William, 2003. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 249-297, July.
    31. Oriol Tejada, 2010. "A note on competitive prices in multilateral assignment markets," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(1), pages 658-662.
    32. Asch, Peter & Seneca, J J, 1976. "Is Collusion Profitable?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 58(1), pages 1-12, February.
    33. SCHMEIDLER, David, 1969. "The nucleolus of a characteristic function game," LIDAM Reprints CORE 44, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    34. Herrero, Carmen & Villar, Antonio, 2001. "The three musketeers: four classical solutions to bankruptcy problems," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 307-328, November.
    35. Katerina Sherstyuk, 1999. "Multisided matching games with complementarities," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 28(4), pages 489-509.
    36. Aumann, Robert J. & Maschler, Michael, 1985. "Game theoretic analysis of a bankruptcy problem from the Talmud," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 195-213, August.
    37. Nicholas Economides, 2001. "The Microsoft Antitrust Case: Rejoinder," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 71-79, March.
    38. Mendelson, Haim, 1982. "Market Behavior in a Clearing House," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(6), pages 1505-1524, November.
    39. Andrew Postlewaite, 1974. "Disadvantageous Syndicates in Exchange Economies," Discussion Papers 105, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    40. Aumann, Robert J., 1973. "Disadvantageous monopolies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 1-11, 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. Trudeau, Christian, 2018. "From the bankruptcy problem and its Concede-and-Divide solution to the assignment problem and its Fair Division solution," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 225-238.
    2. Tejada, J. & Borm, P.E.M. & Lohmann, E.R.M.A., 2013. "A Unifying Model for Matching Situations," Other publications TiSEM 18155a8c-1961-495d-a20d-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Takaaki Abe & Shuige Liu, 2019. "Monotonic core allocation paths for assignment games," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 53(4), pages 557-573, December.

    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. O. Tejada and M. Alvarez-Mozos, 2012. "Vertical Syndication-Proof Competitive Prices in Multilateral Markets," Working Papers in Economics 283, Universitat de Barcelona. Espai de Recerca en Economia.
    2. Jingyi Xue, 2018. "Fair division with uncertain needs," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 51(1), pages 105-136, June.
    3. B. Dietzenbacher & A. Estévez-Fernández & P. Borm & R. Hendrickx, 2021. "Proportionality, equality, and duality in bankruptcy problems with nontransferable utility," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 301(1), pages 65-80, June.
    4. Peter Knudsen & Lars Østerdal, 2012. "Merging and splitting in cooperative games: some (im)possibility results," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 41(4), pages 763-774, November.
    5. Wulf Gaertner & Richard Bradley & Yongsheng Xu & Lars Schwettmann, 2019. "Against the proportionality principle: Experimental findings on bargaining over losses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(7), pages 1-18, July.
    6. José-Manuel Giménez-Gómez & Jordi Teixidó-Figueras & Cori Vilella, 2016. "The global carbon budget: a conflicting claims problem," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 136(3), pages 693-703, June.
    7. Harless, Patrick, 2017. "Wary of the worst: Maximizing award guarantees when new claimants may arrive," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 316-328.
    8. Sinan Ertemel & Rajnish Kumar, 2018. "Proportional rules for state contingent claims," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 47(1), pages 229-246, March.
    9. Andrea Gallice, 2019. "Bankruptcy problems with reference-dependent preferences," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(1), pages 311-336, March.
    10. Bas Dietzenbacher & Peter Borm & Arantza Estévez-Fernández, 2020. "NTU-bankruptcy problems: consistency and the relative adjustment principle," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 24(1), pages 101-122, June.
    11. Thomson, William, 2003. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: a survey," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 249-297, July.
    12. Valencia-Toledo, Alfredo & Vidal-Puga, Juan, 2017. "Duality in land rental problems," MPRA Paper 80509, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Thomson, William, 2015. "Axiomatic and game-theoretic analysis of bankruptcy and taxation problems: An update," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 41-59.
    14. Long, Yan & Sethuraman, Jay & Xue, Jingyi, 2021. "Equal-quantile rules in resource allocation with uncertain needs," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 197(C).
    15. Ata Atay & Eric Bahel & Tamás Solymosi, 2023. "Matching markets with middlemen under transferable utility," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 322(2), pages 539-563, March.
    16. Bloch, Francis & Ghosal, Sayantan, 1997. "Stable Trading Structures in Bilateral Oligopolies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 368-384, June.
    17. Teresa Estañ & Natividad Llorca & Ricardo Martínez & Joaquín Sánchez-Soriano, 2021. "On the Difficulty of Budget Allocation in Claims Problems with Indivisible Items and Prices," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 30(5), pages 1133-1159, October.
    18. Moreno-Ternero, Juan D. & Villar, Antonio, 2004. "The Talmud rule and the securement of agents' awards," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 245-257, March.
    19. José Alcalde & María Marco & José Silva, 2008. "The minimal overlap rule revisited," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 31(1), pages 109-128, June.
    20. Martijn Ketelaars & Peter Borm & Marieke Quant, 2020. "Decentralization and mutual liability rules," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 92(3), pages 577-599, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Multilateral market; Syndicate; Cooperative game; Assignment market; Bankruptcy problem; Nucleolus;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C71 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Cooperative Games
    • D40 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - General

    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:spr:reecde:v:20:y:2016:i:4:d:10.1007_s10058-016-0193-1. 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.