Collusion in an investment game
If collusion was often considered in a market facing uncertainty (Bag-well and Staiger (1997)), or imperfect information (Athey and Bagwell (2008), Harrington and Skrzypacz (2010)), the relationship between collusion and investment is less known. That is the purpose of what follows. This work studies a dynamic game in discrete time with in nite periods. In each period rms make two decisions, investment (or disinvestment) in production capacity and the quantities they produce. Companies can choose to increase or reduce capacity. The irreversibility of decisions is modeled by the difference between purchase price and sale of building (when the gap is zero, the decisions are totally reversible). In each period rms are competing in Cournot, the quantities produced are of course limited by production capacity. The model is presented in section 1.3. In comparison with the Account, Jenny and Rey (2003), capacity is endogenous, modi ed in each period, and the game of competition is a game of Cournot competition while Account Jenny and Rey (2003) are interested in a game competition in Bertrand-Edgeworth. In comparison with Boyer, Lasserre and Moreaux (2010), demand is not random, so there is no uncertainty and the equilibrium concept used is far less restrictive than the Markov equilibrium. Production capacities are not discrete and are not irreversible. These papers are presented in section 1.1 and 1.2. To de ne the collusion, it is necessary to determine a non-collusive equilibrium. In a repeated game, this benchmark equilibrium is constituted by the repetition of the equilibrium of the one shot game. In a stochastic game, as here, we can not implement this solution. We must therefore de ne a reference equilibrium. This point is develloped in section 2.1. In section 2.2 and 2.3 we prove the existence and the unicity of this benchmark equilibrium. If we discretize the game (ie the actions of the players belong to a nite space, which can be chosen in nitesimally large), section 3.1 presents a folk theorem (the proof uses the result of Horner, Sugaya , Old and Takahashi (2010)). This theorem tells us that when the discount rate tends to 1, the set of equilibrium payoff vectors tends to the set of equilibrium payoff vectors of the in nitely repeated Cournot game (without cost or production capacity). The theorem is therefore a borderline result, which gives an equivalence between this game and the Cournot game (in nitely repeated) when players are in nitely patient. Finally, section 3.2 studies conditions for the existence of a speci c collusive equilibrium (the Grim-Trigger equilibrium in capacities).
|Date of creation:||30 Jun 2011|
|Date of revision:|
|Note:||View the original document on HAL open archive server: http://dumas.ccsd.cnrs.fr/dumas-00643721|
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/|
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Avinash K. Dixit & Robert S. Pindyck, 1994. "Investment under Uncertainty," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 5474, April.
- Susan Athey & Kyle Bagwell, 2004.
"Collusion with Persistent Cost Shocks,"
122247000000000334, UCLA Department of Economics.
- Liran Einav & Jonathan D. Levin, 2010.
"Empirical Industrial Organization: A Progress Report,"
NBER Working Papers
15786, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Liran Einav & Jonathan Levin, 2010. "Empirical Industrial Organization: A Progress Report," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 24(2), pages 145-62, Spring.
- J. Levin & L. Einav., 2012. "Empirical Industrial Organization: A Progress Report," VOPROSY ECONOMIKI, N.P. Redaktsiya zhurnala "Voprosy Economiki", vol. 1.
- Liran Einav & Jonathan Levin, 2010. "Empirical Industrial Organization: A Progress Report," Discussion Papers 09-010, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
- Marcel Boyer & Pierre Lasserre & Thomas Mariotti & Michel Moreaux, 2001. "Preemption and Rent Dissipation under Bertrand Competition," Cahiers de recherche du Département des sciences économiques, UQAM 20-04, Université du Québec à Montréal, Département des sciences économiques.
- Kyle Bagwell & Robert W. Staiger, 1995.
"Collusion Over the Business Cycle,"
1118, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Switgard Feuerstein & Hans Gersbach, 2003. "Is capital a collusion device?," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 21(1), pages 133-154, 01.
- Skrzypacz, Andrzej & Harrington, Joseph E., 2005.
"Collusion under Monitoring of Sales,"
1885, Stanford University, Graduate School of Business.
- Johannes Hörner & Takuo Sugaya & Satoru Takahashi & Nicolas Vieille, 2011. "Recursive Methods in Discounted Stochastic Games: An Algorithm for δ→ 1 and a Folk Theorem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 79(4), pages 1277-1318, 07.
- Compte, Olivier & Jenny, Frederic & Rey, Patrick, 2002. "Capacity constraints, mergers and collusion," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 1-29, January.
- Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-90, July.
- Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1991. "Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262061414, June.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hal:journl:dumas-00643721. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (CCSD)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.