IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cdf/wpaper/2011-26.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Product Differentiation, the Volume of Trade and Profits under Cournot and Bertrand Duopoly

Author

Listed:

Abstract

This paper analyses how product differentiation affects the volume of trade under duopoly using Shubik-Levitan demand functions rather than the Bowley demand functions used by Bernhofen (2001). The Shubik-Levitan demand functions have the advantage that an increase in product differentiation does not increase the size of the market as happens with the Bowley demand functions. It is shown that the volume of trade in terms of quantities is decreasing in the degree of product differentiation when the trade cost is relatively low, but increasing in the degree of product differentiation when the trade cost is relatively high.

Suggested Citation

  • Collie, David R. & Le, Vo Phuong Mai, 2011. "Product Differentiation, the Volume of Trade and Profits under Cournot and Bertrand Duopoly," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2011/26, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    • Handle: RePEc:cdf:wpaper:2011/26
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://carbsecon.com/wp/E2011_26.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brander, James & Krugman, Paul, 1983. "A 'reciprocal dumping' model of international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 15(3-4), pages 313-321, November.
    2. Roger Clarke & David Collie, 2003. "Product differentiation and the gains from trade under Bertrand duopoly," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(3), pages 658-673, August.
    3. Dermot Leahy & J. Peter Neary, 2013. "Oligopoly and Trade," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Daniel Bernhofen & Rod Falvey & David Greenaway & Udo Kreickemeier (ed.), Palgrave Handbook of International Trade, chapter 7, pages 197-235, Palgrave Macmillan.
    4. Anderson, Simon P & Donsimoni, M-P & Gabszewicz, J J, 1989. "Is International Trade Profitable to Oligopolistic Industries?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 30(4), pages 725-733, November.
    5. Daniel M. Bernhofen, 2001. "Product differentiation, competition, and international trade," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 34(4), pages 1010-1023, November.
    6. 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.
    7. Schmitt, Nicolas & Yu, Zhihao, 2001. "Economies of scale and the volume of intra-industry trade," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 127-132, December.
    8. Brander, James A., 1981. "Intra-industry trade in identical commodities," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1), pages 1-14, February.
    9. Ethier, Wilfred J, 1982. "National and International Returns to Scale in the Modern Theory of International Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(3), pages 389-405, June.
    10. Piercarlo Zanchettin, 2006. "Differentiated Duopoly with Asymmetric Costs," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(4), pages 999-1015, December.
    11. Harrigan, James, 1994. "Scale Economies and the Volume of Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 76(2), pages 321-328, May.
    12. Daniel M. Bernhofen, 2001. "Product differentiation, competition, and international trade," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(4), pages 1010-1023, November.
    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. Fan, Cuihong & Jun, Byoung Heon & Wolfstetter, Elmar G., 2016. "Optimal bid disclosure in patent license auctions under alternative modes of competition," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-32.
    2. Arozamena, Leandro & Weinschelbaum, Federico & Wolfstetter, Elmar G., 2018. "Procuring substitutes with (fine-tuned) first-price auctions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 171(C), pages 115-118.
    3. Peter Neary & Dermot Leahy, 2015. "When The Threat Is Stronger Than The Execution: Trade Liberalization And Welfare Under Oligopoly," Economics Series Working Papers 775, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    4. Dermot Leahy & J. Peter Neary, 2021. "When the threat is stronger than the execution: trade and welfare under oligopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(3), pages 471-495, September.

    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. Dermot Leahy & J. Peter Neary, 2021. "When the threat is stronger than the execution: trade and welfare under oligopoly," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(3), pages 471-495, September.
    2. Fujiwara, Kenji, 2009. "Trade liberalization in a differentiated duopoly reconsidered," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 165-171, September.
    3. José Daniel Reyes, 2013. "Trade Liberalization and the Adoption of Antidumping Laws in Developing Countries," Revista Equidad y Desarrollo, Universidad de la Salle, December.
    4. Ganslandt, Mattias & Friberg, Richard, 2005. "Reciprocal Dumping with Bertrand Competition," CEPR Discussion Papers 5023, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Krzysztof Kosiec, 2016. "Liberalisation of International Trade – The Case of Asymmetric Countries," Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, Central European Journal of Economic Modelling and Econometrics, vol. 8(3), pages 143-160, September.
    6. Paulo Bastos & Odd Rune Straume, 2012. "Globalization, product differentiation, and wage inequality," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 45(3), pages 857-878, August.
    7. Collie, David R., 2016. "Gains from variety? Product differentiation and the possibility of losses from trade under Cournot oligopoly with free entry," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 55-58.
    8. Dermot Leahy & J. Peter Neary, 2013. "Oligopoly and Trade," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Daniel Bernhofen & Rod Falvey & David Greenaway & Udo Kreickemeier (ed.), Palgrave Handbook of International Trade, chapter 7, pages 197-235, Palgrave Macmillan.
    9. John Gilbert & Onur A. Koska & Reza Oladi, 2022. "International trade, differentiated goods, and strategic asymmetry," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 88(3), pages 1178-1198, January.
    10. Roger Clarke & David Collie, 2003. "Product differentiation and the gains from trade under Bertrand duopoly," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(3), pages 658-673, August.
    11. Gerda Dewit & Dermot Leahy, 2016. "Strategic R&D Commitment and the Gains from Trade," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(5), pages 1129-1148, November.
    12. Straume, Odd Rune, 2002. "Union collusion and intra-industry trade," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 631-652, May.
    13. Krugman, Paul R., 1989. "Industrial organization and international trade," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 20, pages 1179-1223, Elsevier.
    14. Takauchi, Kazuhiro & Mizuno, Tomomichi, 2019. "Solving a hold-up problem may harm all firms: Downstream R&D and transport-price contracts," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 29-49.
    15. Lim, Seonyoung & Choi, Kangsik, 2014. "Strategic Subsidy Policies with Endogenous Choice of Competition Mode," MPRA Paper 59462, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Parenti, Mathieu, 2018. "Large and small firms in a global market: David vs. Goliath," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 103-118.
    17. Navas Antonio & Licandro Omar, 2011. "Trade Liberalization, Competition and Growth," The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-28, May.
    18. Ming Chang & Yan-Ching Ho, 2014. "Comparing Cournot and Bertrand equilibria in an asymmetric duopoly with product R&D," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 133-174, October.
    19. Peter Neary & Dermot Leahy, 2015. "When The Threat Is Stronger Than The Execution: Trade Liberalization And Welfare Under Oligopoly," Economics Series Working Papers 775, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    20. Acharyya, Rajat & Marjit, Sugata, 1998. "To Liberalize or Not to Liberalize an LDC-Market with an Inefficient Incumbent," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 277-296.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Product Differentiation; Cournot Oligopoly; Bertrand Oligopoly;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • F12 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Models of Trade with Imperfect Competition and Scale Economies; Fragmentation
    • F13 - International Economics - - Trade - - - Trade Policy; International Trade Organizations

    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:cdf:wpaper:2011/26. 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: Yongdeng Xu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ecscfuk.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.