IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bon/boncrc/crctr224_2024_529.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Dynamic Model of Predation

Author

Listed:
  • Patrick Rey
  • Yossi Spiegel
  • Konrad Stahl

Abstract

We study the feasibility and profitability of predtion in a dynamic environment, using a parsimonious infinite-horizon, complete information setting in which an incumbent repeatedly faces potential entry. When a rival enters, the incumbent chooses whether to accommodate or predate it; the entrant then decides whether to stay or exit. We show that there always exists a Markov perfect equilibrium, which can be of three types: accommodation, monopolization, and recurrent predation. We then analyze and compare the welfare effects of different antitrust policies, accounting for the possibility that recurrent predtion may be welfare improving.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrick Rey & Yossi Spiegel & Konrad Stahl, 2024. "A Dynamic Model of Predation," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2024_529, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    • Handle: RePEc:bon:boncrc:crctr224_2024_529
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.crctr224.de/research/discussion-papers/archive/dp529
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Besanko, David & Doraszelski, Ulrich & Kryukov, Yaroslav, 2020. "Sacrifice tests for predation in a dynamic pricing model: Ordover and Willig (1981) and Cabral and Riordan (1997) meet Ericson and Pakes (1995)," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    2. Aaron Edlin & Catherine Roux & Armin Schmutzler & Christian Thöni, 2019. "Hunting Unicorns? Experimental Evidence on Exclusionary Pricing Policies," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 62(3), pages 457-484.
    3. Chiara Fumagalli & Massimo Motta, 2013. "A Simple Theory of Predation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(3), pages 595-631.
    4. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1986. "A "Signal-Jamming" Theory of Predation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(3), pages 366-376, Autumn.
    5. Bolton, Patrick & Scharfstein, David S, 1990. "A Theory of Predation Based on Agency Problems in Financial Contracting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 93-106, March.
    6. David Besanko & Ulrich Doraszelski & Yaroslav Kryukov, 2014. "The Economics of Predation: What Drives Pricing When There Is Learning-by-Doing?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(3), pages 868-897, March.
    7. Ordover, Janusz A. & Saloner, Garth, 1989. "Predation, monopolization, and antitrust," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 9, pages 537-596, Elsevier.
    8. David Genesove & Wallace P. Mullin, 2006. "Predation and its rate of return: the sugar industry, 1887–1914," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(1), pages 47-69, March.
    9. Cabral, Luis M B & Riordan, Michael H, 1994. "The Learning Curve, Market Dominance, and Predatory Pricing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(5), pages 1115-1140, September.
    10. Bruce H. Kobayashi, 2010. "The Law and Economics of Predatory Pricing," Chapters, in: Keith N. Hylton (ed.), Antitrust Law and Economics, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Roberts, John, 1986. "A Signaling Model of Predatory Pricing," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(0), pages 75-93, Suppl. No.
    12. David Genesove & Wallace Mullin, 2006. "Predation and Its Rate of Return: The Sugar Industry, 1887Ð1914," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 37(1), pages 47-69, Spring.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Chiara Fumagalli & Massimo Motta, 2013. "A Simple Theory of Predation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(3), pages 595-631.
    2. Argenton, Cédric, 2019. "Colluding on excluding," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 194-206.
    3. Besanko, David & Doraszelski, Ulrich & Kryukov, Yaroslav, 2020. "Sacrifice tests for predation in a dynamic pricing model: Ordover and Willig (1981) and Cabral and Riordan (1997) meet Ericson and Pakes (1995)," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    4. Argenton, Cédric & Willems, Bert, 2015. "Exclusion through speculation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 1-9.
    5. Lindsey, Robin & West, Douglas S., 2003. "Predatory pricing in differentiated products retail markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 551-592, April.
    6. Bayer, Christian, 2007. "Investment timing and predatory behavior in a duopoly with endogenous exit," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 31(9), pages 3069-3109, September.
    7. Michael Funk & Christian Jaag, 2018. "The More Economic Approach To Predatory Pricing," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 292-310.
    8. C.-Philipp Heller & Heiner Lindenlaub & Frank P Maier-Rigaud, 2020. "Exclusionary bundle discounts: A simple model with two applications," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(1), pages 210-216.
    9. Christian Bayer, 2004. "The Other Side of Limited Liability: Predatory Behavior and Investment Timing," Industrial Organization 0407001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Stephen Martin, 2015. "Areeda–Turner and the Treatment of Exclusionary Pricing under U.S. Antitrust and EU Competition Policy," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 46(3), pages 229-252, May.
    11. Kenneth G. Elzinga & David E. Mills, 2014. "Antitrust Predation and The Antitrust Paradox," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(S3), pages 181-200.
    12. Fiona Scott Morton, 1996. "Entry and Predation: British Shipping Cartels 1879-1929," NBER Working Papers 5663, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. William Comanor & H. Frech, 2015. "Economic Rationality and the Areeda–Turner Rule," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 46(3), pages 253-268, May.
    14. Persson, Lars, 2004. "Predation and mergers: Is merger law counterproductive?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 239-258, April.
    15. Chiara Fumagalli & Massimo Motta, 2020. "Dynamic Vertical Foreclosure," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63(4), pages 763-812.
    16. Enrique Schroth & Dezsö Szalay, 2010. "Cash Breeds Success: The Role of Financing Constraints in Patent Races," Review of Finance, European Finance Association, vol. 14(1), pages 73-118.
    17. Aghion, Philippe & Dewatripont, Mathias & Legros, Patrick & Zingales, Luigi (ed.), 2016. "The Impact of Incomplete Contracts on Economics," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199826216, Decembrie.
    18. Nicola Giocoli, 2013. "Games judges don't play: predatory pricing and strategic reasoning in US antitrust," Supreme Court Economic Review, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(1), pages 271-330.
    19. Davis, Peter, 2006. "Estimation of quantity games in the presence of indivisibilities and heterogeneous firms," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 134(1), pages 187-214, September.
    20. Pietro Crocioni, 2018. "On The Relevant Cost Standard For Price–Cost Test In Abuses Of Dominance," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 14(2), pages 262-291.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    predation; accommodation; entry; legal rules; Markov perfect equilibrium;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices

    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:bon:boncrc:crctr224_2024_529. 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: CRC Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.crctr224.de .

    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.