IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cer/papers/wp369.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Stackelberg Leadership with Product Differentiation and Endogenous Entry: Some Comparative Static and Limiting Results

Author

Listed:
  • Kresimir Zigic

Abstract

Allowing for endogenous entry in the traditional Stackelberg setup with product differentiation, leads to reverting of the standard comparative static and limiting results. Unlike in the standard Stackelberg setup with barriers to entry, the leader's profit increases when the differentiation becomes lower. The reason is that competition becomes tougher when products become more alike, and consequently, fewer firms enter in equilibrium. On the other hand, increasing product differentiation towards its limit results in number of entrants tending to infinity and for very large market, the profit of the leader approaches zero. Thus market structure approaches monopolistic competition, rather than the standard monopoly outcome that occurs with exogenous number of followers.

Suggested Citation

  • Kresimir Zigic, 2008. "Stackelberg Leadership with Product Differentiation and Endogenous Entry: Some Comparative Static and Limiting Results," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp369, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    • Handle: RePEc:cer:papers:wp369
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.cerge-ei.cz/pdf/wp/Wp369.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Federico Etro, 2006. "Aggressive leaders," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(1), pages 146-154, March.
    2. Federico Etro, 2008. "Stackelberg Competition with Endogenous Entry," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(532), pages 1670-1697, October.
    3. Avinash Dixit, 1979. "A Model of Duopoly Suggesting a Theory of Entry Barriers," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 20-32, Spring.
    4. Mukherjee, Arijit, 2005. "Price and quantity competition under free entry," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(4), pages 335-344, December.
    5. Attila Tasnádi, 2010. "Quantity-setting games with a dominant firm," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 99(3), pages 251-266, April.
    6. Federico Etro, 2006. "Market Leaders and Industrial Policy," Working Papers 103, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Nov 2006.
    7. Hiroaki Ino & Toshihiro Matsumura, 2010. "What role should public enterprises play in free-entry markets?," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 101(3), pages 213-230, November.
    8. Cellini, Roberto & Lambertini, Luca & Ottaviano, Gianmarco I. P., 2004. "Welfare in a differentiated oligopoly with free entry: a cautionary note," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 125-133, June.
    9. Federico Etro, 2004. "Innovation by leaders," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 114(495), pages 281-303, April.
    10. Federico Etro, 2007. "Competition, Innovation, and Antitrust," Springer Books, Springer, number 978-3-540-49601-4, February.
    11. Vives, Xavier, 1985. "On the efficiency of Bertrand and Cournot equilibria with product differentation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 166-175, June.
    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. Federico Etro, 2014. "Some thoughts on the Sutton approach," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 112(2), pages 99-113, June.
    2. Hiroaki Ino & Akira Miyaoka, 2016. "Government-induced Production Commitment in the Open Economy," Discussion Paper Series 142, School of Economics, Kwansei Gakuin University, revised May 2016.
    3. Tai-Liang Chen & Yuxiang Zou, 2022. "Product differentiation, privatization commitment and profitability comparisons," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 136(1), pages 1-24, June.

    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. Kresimir Zigic, 2011. "Strategic Interactions in Markets with Innovative Activity: The Cases of Strategic Trade Policy and Market Leadership," CERGE-EI Books, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague, edition 1, number b06, May.
    2. Kovác, Eugen & Vinogradov, Viatcheslav & Zigic, Kresimir, 2010. "Technological leadership and persistence of monopoly under endogenous entry: Static versus dynamic analysis," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1421-1441, August.
    3. Susumu Cato & Toshihiro Matsumura, 2019. "Entry License Tax: Stackelberg versus Cournot," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 175(2), pages 258-271.
    4. Federico Etro, 2010. "Endogenous market structures and antitrust policy," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 57(1), pages 9-45, March.
    5. Zigic, Kresimir & Maçi, Ilir, 2011. "Competition policy and market leaders," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 1042-1049, May.
    6. Hiroaki Ino & Toshihiro Matsumura, 2010. "What role should public enterprises play in free-entry markets?," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 101(3), pages 213-230, November.
    7. Toshihiro Matsumura & Yasunori Okumura, 2014. "Comparison between specific taxation and volume quotas in a free entry Cournot oligopoly," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 113(2), pages 125-132, October.
    8. Kováč, Eugen & Žigić, Krešimir, 2016. "Persistence of monopoly, innovation, and R&D spillovers," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 714-734.
    9. Ledezma, Ivan, 2013. "Defensive strategies in quality ladders," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 176-194.
    10. Federico Etro, 2014. "The Theory Of Endogenous Market Structures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 804-830, December.
    11. Federico Etro, 2008. "Stackelberg Competition with Endogenous Entry," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(532), pages 1670-1697, October.
    12. Susumu Cato & Ryoko Oki, 2012. "Leaders and competitors," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 239-255, November.
    13. Federico Etro, 2006. "Market Leaders and Industrial Policy," Working Papers 103, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Nov 2006.
    14. Hiroaki Ino & Toshihiro Matsumura, 2012. "How Many Firms Should Be Leaders? Beneficial Concentration Revisited," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 53(4), pages 1323-1340, November.
    15. Dirk Czarnitzki & Federico Etro & Kornelius Kraft, 2014. "Endogenous Market Structures and Innovation by Leaders: An Empirical Test," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 81(321), pages 117-139, January.
    16. Czarnitzki, Dirk & Etro, Federico Gabriele & Kraft, Kornelius, 2008. "The Effect of Entry on R&D Investment of Leaders: Theory and Empirical Evidence," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-078, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    17. Wang, Leonard F.S. & Lee, Jen-yao, 2013. "Foreign penetration and undesirable competition," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 729-732.
    18. Lee, Sang-Ho & Matsumura, Toshihiro & Sato, Susumu, 2017. "A New Approach to Free Entry Markets in Mixed Oligopolies: Welfare Implications," MPRA Paper 76450, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. Federico Etro, 2010. "Endogenous market structures and the optimal financial structure," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 43(4), pages 1333-1352, November.
    20. Etro, Federico, 2008. "Growth leaders," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 1148-1172, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Stackelberg leadership; product differentiation; endogenous entry.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L1 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection

    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:cer:papers:wp369. 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: Lucie Vasiljevova (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eiacacz.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.