IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bol/bodewp/wp730.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Vertical Differentiation in a Cournot Industry: The Porter Hypothesis and Beyond

Author

Listed:
  • L. Lambertini
  • A. Tampieri

Abstract

We modify the vertically differentiated duopoly model by Andr et al. (2009) replacing Bertrand with Cournot behaviour to show that firms may spontaneously adopt a green technology even in the complete absence of any form of regulation.

Suggested Citation

  • L. Lambertini & A. Tampieri, 2011. "Vertical Differentiation in a Cournot Industry: The Porter Hypothesis and Beyond," Working Papers wp730, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    • Handle: RePEc:bol:bodewp:wp730
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://amsacta.unibo.it/4511/1/WP730.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Christos Constantatos & Markus Herrmann, 2011. "Market Inertia and the Introduction of Green Products: Can Strategic Effects Justify the Porter Hypothesis?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 50(2), pages 267-284, October.
    2. Xepapadeas, Anastasios & de Zeeuw, Aart, 1999. "Environmental Policy and Competitiveness: The Porter Hypothesis and the Composition of Capital," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 165-182, March.
    3. Hart, Rob, 2004. "Growth, environment and innovation--a model with production vintages and environmentally oriented research," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 1078-1098, November.
    4. Jaskold Gabszewicz, J. & Thisse, J. -F., 1979. "Price competition, quality and income disparities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 340-359, June.
    5. Nirvikar Singh & Xavier Vives, 1984. "Price and Quantity Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(4), pages 546-554, Winter.
    6. Andr, Francisco J. & Gonzlez, Paula & Porteiro, Nicols, 2009. "Strategic quality competition and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 182-194, March.
    7. Levitan, Richard & Shubik, Martin, 1972. "Price Duopoly and Capacity Constraints," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 13(1), pages 111-122, February.
    8. Osborne, Martin J. & Pitchik, Carolyn, 1986. "Price competition in a capacity-constrained duopoly," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 238-260, April.
    9. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
    10. Michael E. Porter & Claas van der Linde, 1995. "Toward a New Conception of the Environment-Competitiveness Relationship," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 9(4), pages 97-118, Fall.
    11. Simpson, R. David & Bradford, Robert III, 1996. "Taxing Variable Cost: Environmental Regulation as Industrial Policy," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 282-300, May.
    12. David M. Kreps & Jose A. Scheinkman, 1983. "Quantity Precommitment and Bertrand Competition Yield Cournot Outcomes," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 326-337, Autumn.
    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. Amir, Rabah & Gama, Adriana & Maret, Isabelle, 2019. "Environmental quality and monopoly pricing," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(C).
    2. Dezhong Duan & Hong Jin, 2022. "Environmental Regulation and Green Technology Diffusion: A Case Study of Yangtze River Delta, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-14, October.
    3. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    4. L. Lambertini & G. Pignataro & A. Tampieri, 2014. "Green Consumers, Greenwashing and the Misperception of Environmental Quality," Working Papers wp958, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    5. Rustico, Erica & Dimitrov, Stanko, 2022. "Environmental taxation: The impact of carbon tax policy commitment on technology choice and social welfare," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 243(C).
    6. Paolo G. Garella, 2021. "The effects of taxes and subsidies on environmental qualities in a differentiated duopoly," Letters in Spatial and Resource Sciences, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 197-209, August.
    7. Dongdong Li & Leonard F. S. Wang, 2022. "Does environmental corporate social responsibility (ECSR) promote green product and process innovation?," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(5), pages 1439-1447, July.
    8. Lambertini, Luca & Pignataro, Giuseppe & Tampieri, Alessandro, 2020. "The effects of environmental quality misperception on investments and regulation," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    9. Teemu Makkonen & Sari Repka, 2016. "The innovation inducement impact of environmental regulations on maritime transport: a literature review," International Journal of Innovation and Sustainable Development, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 10(1), pages 69-86.
    10. Lambertini, Luca & Orsini, Raimondello & Palestini, Arsen, 2017. "On the instability of the R&D portfolio in a dynamic monopoly. Or, one cannot get two eggs in one basket," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 703-712.
    11. Ana Espinola-Arredondo & Felix Munoz-Garcia, 2012. "An Excessive Development of Green Products," Working Papers 2012-5, School of Economic Sciences, Washington State University.
    12. Flavio Delbono & Luca Lambertini, 2022. "Optimal emission taxation and the Porter hypothesis under Bertrand competition," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 93(3), pages 755-765, September.
    13. Pang, Yu, 2018. "Profitable pollution abatement? A worker productivity perspective," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 33-49.
    14. Luca Lambertini & Giuseppe Pignataro & Alessandro Tampieri, 2022. "Competition among coalitions in a cournot industry: a validation of the porter hypothesis," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 679-713, October.
    15. L. Lambertini & A. Tampieri, 2012. "On the Emergence of Overcompliance with Endogenous Environmental Standards and Patronising Consumers," Working Papers wp847, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    16. Mulder, Machiel & Petrikaitė, Vaiva & Scholtens, Bert, 2015. "Distributed energy generation techniques and the competitive fringe effect in electricity markets," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 125-140.
    17. Luca Lambertini & Andrea Mantovani & Cecilia Vergari, 2021. "Green monopoly and downward leapfrogging," Economia e Politica Industriale: Journal of Industrial and Business Economics, Springer;Associazione Amici di Economia e Politica Industriale, vol. 48(1), pages 93-103, March.
    18. Iwata, Hiroki, 2020. "Effects of competition forms and market structure on green innovation incentives," MPRA Paper 99305, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. André, Francisco J., 2015. "Strategic Effects and the Porter Hypothesis," MPRA Paper 62237, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    2. Andr, Francisco J. & Gonzlez, Paula & Porteiro, Nicols, 2009. "Strategic quality competition and the Porter Hypothesis," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(2), pages 182-194, March.
    3. Stefan Ambec & Mark A. Cohen & Stewart Elgie & Paul Lanoie, 2013. "The Porter Hypothesis at 20: Can Environmental Regulation Enhance Innovation and Competitiveness?," Review of Environmental Economics and Policy, Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 7(1), pages 2-22, January.
    4. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107069978.
    5. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899.
    6. Lambertini, Luca, 1997. "Prisoners' Dilemma in Duopoly (Super)Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 181-191, November.
    7. Hamamoto, Mitsutsugu, 2006. "Environmental regulation and the productivity of Japanese manufacturing industries," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 299-312, November.
    8. Qiu, Larry D. & Zhou, Mohan & Wei, Xu, 2018. "Regulation, innovation, and firm selection: The porter hypothesis under monopolistic competition," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 638-658.
    9. Jean J. Gabszewicz & Jacques-François Thisse, 2000. "Microeconomic theories of imperfect competition," Cahiers d'Économie Politique, Programme National Persée, vol. 37(1), pages 47-99.
    10. Cellini, Roberto & Lambertini, Luca, 1998. "A Dynamic Model of Differentiated Oligopoly with Capital Accumulation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 145-155, November.
    11. R. Cellini & L. Lambertini, 2000. "Differential Games and Oligopoly Theory: An Overview," Working Papers 369, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    12. G. Ceccantoni & O. Tarola & C. Vergari, 2017. "Relative tax in a vertically differentiated market: the key role of consumers in environment," Working Papers wp2005, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    13. WAUTHY, Xavier Y., 2014. "From Bertrand to Cournot via Kreps and Scheinkman: a hazardous journey," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2014026, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    14. Luca Lambertini & Manuela Mosca, 2014. "The Bertrand Paradox, the Useless Auctioneer and the Launhardt Model," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3-4), pages 170-183, December.
    15. Raymond J. Deneckere & Dan Kovenock, 1988. "Capacity-Constrained Price Competition When Unit Costs Differ," Discussion Papers 861, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    16. Roy Chowdhury, Prabal, 2008. "Bertrand-Edgeworth equilibrium with a large number of firms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 746-761, May.
    17. Dominique Bianco & Evens Salies, 2017. "The Strong Porter Hypothesis in an Endogenous Growth Model with Satisficing Managers," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 37(4), pages 2641-2654.
    18. Emanuele Bacchiega & Olivier Bonroy & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2018. "Contract contingency in vertically related markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 772-791, October.
    19. Jacobs, Martin & Requate, Till, 2016. "Bertrand-Edgeworth markets with increasing marginal costs and voluntary trading: Experimental evidence," Economics Working Papers 2016-01, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    20. Dominique Bianco & Evens Salies, 2017. "The Strong Porter Hypothesis in an Endogenous Growth Model with Satisficing Managers," Post-Print hal-02177939, HAL.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • Q55 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Technological Innovation
    • Q58 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Environmental Economics - - - Environmental Economics: Government Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:bol:bodewp:wp730. 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: Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sebolit.html .

    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.