IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/jeduce/v34y2003i1p21-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bertrand Price Undercutting: A Brief Classroom Demonstration

Author

Listed:
  • Andreas Ortmann

Abstract

The author presents a brief classroom demonstration illustrating Bertrand price undercutting. The demonstration is appropriate for micro principles and intermediate- and upper-level undergraduate classes, as well as graduate classes in micro, industrial organization, and game theory.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreas Ortmann, 2003. "Bertrand Price Undercutting: A Brief Classroom Demonstration," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 34(1), pages 21-26, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:jeduce:v:34:y:2003:i:1:p:21-26
    DOI: 10.1080/00220480309595197
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/00220480309595197
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/00220480309595197?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 look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Greg Delemeester & Jurgen Brauer, 2000. "Games Economists Play: Noncomputerized Classroom Games," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(4), pages 406-406, December.
    2. Nagel, Rosemarie, 1995. "Unraveling in Guessing Games: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(5), pages 1313-1326, December.
    3. Brown Kruse, Jamie & Thompson, Mark A., 2001. "A comparison of salient rewards in experiments: money and class points," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 113-117, December.
    4. Brauer, Jurgen & Delemeester, Greg, 2001. "Games Economists Play: A Survey of Non-computerized Classroom-Games for College Economics," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 221-236, April.
    5. Hans Gremmen & Jan Potters, 1997. "Assessing the Efficacy of Gaming in Economic Education," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 291-303, December.
    6. Dufwenberg, Martin & Gneezy, Uri, 2000. "Price competition and market concentration: an experimental study," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 7-22, January.
    7. Reinhard Selten, 1973. "A Simple Model of Imperfect Competition, where 4 are Few and 6 are Many," Center for Mathematical Economics Working Papers 008, Center for Mathematical Economics, Bielefeld University.
    8. Friedman, Daniel, 1996. "Equilibrium in Evolutionary Games: Some Experimental Results," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(434), pages 1-25, January.
    9. Charles A. Holt & Monica Capra, 2000. "Classroom Games: A Prisoner's Dilemma," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 31(3), pages 229-236, September.
    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. Libor Dušek & Andreas Ortmann & Lubomír Lízal, 2005. "Understanding Corruption and Corruptibility Through Experiments," Prague Economic Papers, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2005(2), pages 147-162.
    2. Robert Rebelein & Evsen Turkay, 2016. "When do first-movers have an advantage? A Stackelberg classroom experiment," The Journal of Economic Education, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(3), pages 226-240, July.

    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. 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.
    2. Antonio Cabrales & Rosemarie Nagel & Roc Armenter, 2007. "Equilibrium selection through incomplete information in coordination games: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(3), pages 221-234, September.
    3. Huck, Steffen & Normann, Hans-Theo & Oechssler, Jorg, 2004. "Two are few and four are many: number effects in experimental oligopolies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 435-446, April.
    4. Tisha Emerson & Denise Hazlett, 2011. "Classroom Experiments," Chapters, in: Gail M. Hoyt & KimMarie McGoldrick (ed.), International Handbook on Teaching and Learning Economics, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Rau, Holger & Clemens, Georg, 2014. "Do Leniency Policies facilitate Collusion? Experimental Evidence," VfS Annual Conference 2014 (Hamburg): Evidence-based Economic Policy 100509, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Nelson, Robert G. & Wilson, Norbert L.W., 2008. "Evaluating Teaching Methods: Is It Worth Doing Right?," 2008 Annual Meeting, February 2-6, 2008, Dallas, Texas 6810, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    7. Tigran Melkonyan & Hossam Zeitoun & Nick Chater, 2018. "Collusion in Bertrand vs. Cournot Competition: A Virtual Bargaining Approach," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(12), pages 5599-5610, December.
    8. Axel Sonntag & Daniel John Zizzo, 2015. "Institutional authority and collusion," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 82(1), pages 13-37, July.
    9. Jieyi Duan & Nobuyuki Hanaki, 2021. "The impact of asset purchases in an experimental market with consumption smoothing motives," ISER Discussion Paper 1147, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    10. Bayona, Anna & Brandts, Jordi & Vives, Xavier, 2020. "Information frictions and market power: A laboratory study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 354-369.
    11. Georg Clemens & Holger A. Rau, 2019. "Do discriminatory leniency policies fight hard‐core cartels?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 336-354, April.
    12. Potters, Jan & Suetens, Sigrid, 2020. "Optimization incentives in dilemma games with strategic complementarity," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    13. Penalver, Adrian & Hanaki, Nobuyuki & Akiyama, Eizo & Funaki, Yukihiko & Ishikawa, Ryuichiro, 2020. "A quantitative easing experiment," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 119(C).
    14. Subhasish Dugar & Arnab Mitra, 2016. "Bertrand Competition With Asymmetric Marginal Costs," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 54(3), pages 1631-1647, July.
    15. Fourberg, Niklas, 2017. "Let's lock them in: Collusion under Consumer Switching Costs," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168097, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    16. Dufwenberg, Martin & Gneezy, Uri, 2002. "Information disclosure in auctions: an experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 431-444, August.
    17. Clemens, Georg & Rau, Holger A., 2014. "Do leniency policies facilitate collusion? Experimental evidence," DICE Discussion Papers 130, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    18. Georg Clemens & Holger A. Rau, 2022. "Either with us or against us: experimental evidence on partial cartels," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(2), pages 237-257, September.
    19. Costa-Gomes, Miguel & Crawford, Vincent P & Broseta, Bruno, 2001. "Cognition and Behavior in Normal-Form Games: An Experimental Study," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(5), pages 1193-1235, September.
    20. Ninos P. Malek & Joshua C. Hall & Collin Hodges, 2014. "A Review and Analysis of the Effectiveness of Alternative Teaching Methods on Student Learning in Economics," Working Papers 14-27, Department of Economics, West Virginia University.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • A1 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics
    • A2 - General Economics and Teaching - - Economic Education and Teaching of Economics
    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • D4 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design

    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:taf:jeduce:v:34:y:2003:i:1:p:21-26. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/VECE20 .

    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.