IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/imp/wpaper/5958.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Vertical bargaining and countervailing power

Author

Listed:
  • Valletti, T
  • Iozzi, A

Abstract

We study a set of bilateral Nash bargaining problems between an upstream input supplier and several differentiated but competing retailers. If one bilateral bargain fails, the supplier can sell to the other retailers. We show that, in a disagreement, the other retailers' behavior has a dramatic impact on the supplier's outside options and, therefore, on input prices and welfare. We revisit the countervailing buyer power hypothesis and obtain results in stark contrast with previous findings, depending on the type of outside option. Our results apply, more generally, to the literature that incorporates negotiated input prices using bilateral Nash bargaining.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Valletti, T & Iozzi, A, 2014. "Vertical bargaining and countervailing power," Working Papers 5958, Imperial College, London, Imperial College Business School.
  • Handle: RePEc:imp:wpaper:5958
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/5958/1/Valletti%202010-10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mónica Correa-López, 2007. "Price and Quantity Competition in a Differentiated Duopoly with Upstream Suppliers," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(2), pages 469-505, June.
    2. Dobson, Paul W., 1994. "Multifirm unions and the incentive to adopt pattern bargaining in oligopoly," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 87-100, January.
    3. Roman Inderst & Tommaso Valletti, 2009. "Price discrimination in input markets," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(1), pages 1-19.
    4. Rey, Patrick & Tirole, Jean, 2007. "A Primer on Foreclosure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier.
    5. Lopez, Monica Correa & Naylor, Robin A., 2004. "The Cournot-Bertrand profit differential: A reversal result in a differentiated duopoly with wage bargaining," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 681-696, June.
    6. Robert C. Marshall & Antonio Merlo, 2004. "Pattern Bargaining," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 45(1), pages 239-255, February.
    7. George Symeonidis, 2008. "Downstream Competition, Bargaining, and Welfare," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(1), pages 247-270, March.
    8. Gregory S. Crawford & Ali Yurukoglu, 2012. "The Welfare Effects of Bundling in Multichannel Television Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(2), pages 643-685, April.
    9. Inderst, Roman & Wey, Christian, 2003. " Bargaining, Mergers, and Technology Choice in Bilaterally Oligopolistic Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(1), pages 1-19, Spring.
    10. Esther Gal-Or & Anthony Dukes, 2006. "On the Profitability of Media Mergers," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 79(2), pages 489-526, March.
    11. Chen, Zhiqi, 2003. " Dominant Retailers and the Countervailing-Power Hypothesis," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(4), pages 612-625, Winter.
    12. Milliou, Chrysovalantou & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 2007. "Upstream horizontal mergers, vertical contracts, and bargaining," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 963-987, October.
    13. Naylor, Robin A., 2002. "Industry profits and competition under bilateral oligopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 169-175, October.
    14. Jonas Björnerstedt & Johan Stennek, 2001. "Bilateral Oligopoly," CIG Working Papers FS IV 01-08, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    15. Henrick Horn & Asher Wolinsky, 1988. "Bilateral Monopolies and Incentives for Merger," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(3), pages 408-419, Autumn.
    16. Dowrick, Steve, 1989. "Union-Oligopoly Bargaining," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(398), pages 1123-1142, December.
    17. Hackner, Jonas, 2000. "A Note on Price and Quantity Competition in Differentiated Oligopolies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 233-239, August.
    18. Dobson, Paul W. & Waterson, Michael, 2007. "The competition effects of industry-wide vertical price fixing in bilateral oligopoly," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 935-962, October.
    19. McAfee, R Preston & Schwartz, Marius, 1994. "Opportunism in Multilateral Vertical Contracting: Nondiscrimination, Exclusivity, and Uniformity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 210-230, March.
    20. von Ungern-Sternberg, Thomas, 1996. "Countervailing power revisited," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(4), pages 507-519, 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. Haskel, Jonathan & Iozzi, Alberto & Valletti, Tommaso, 2013. "Market structure, countervailing power and price discrimination: The case of airports," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 12-26.
    2. Noriaki Matsushima & Shohei Yoshida, 2016. "The countervailing power hypothesis when dominant retailers function as sales promoters," ISER Discussion Paper 0981, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    3. repec:kap:jeczfn:v:124:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s00712-017-0563-3 is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Noriaki Matsushima & Shohei Yoshida, 2016. "The Countervailing Power Hypothesis when Dominant Retailers Function as Sales Promoters," ISER Discussion Paper 0981r, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University, revised Jul 2017.
    5. You, Jing & Imai, Katsushi S. & Gaiha, Raghav, 2016. "Declining Nutrient Intake in a Growing China: Does Household Heterogeneity Matter?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 171-191.
    6. E. Bacchiega & O. Bonroy & E. Petrakis, 2016. "Contract contingency in vertically related markets," Working Papers wp1079, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    7. Noriaki Matsushima & Laixun Zhao, 2015. "Strategic dual sourcing as a driver for free revealing of innovation," ISER Discussion Paper 0936, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    8. Aghadadashli, Hamid & Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Wey, Christian, 2016. "The Nash bargaining solution in vertical relations with linear input prices," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 145(C), pages 291-294.
    9. Mérel, Pierre & Sexton, Richard J., 2017. "Buyer power with atomistic upstream entry: Can downstream consolidation increase production and welfare?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 259-293.
    10. Ursino Giovanni, 2015. "Supply Chain Control: A Theory of Vertical Integration," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(4), pages 1831-1866, October.
    11. Bonnet, Céline & Bouamra-Mechemache, Zohra & Molina, Hugo, 2016. "The Welfare Effects of Brand Portfolio Strategies in the Soft Drink Industry: A Structural Bargaining Approach with Limited Data," 149th Seminar, October 27-28, 2016, Rennes, France 245168, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Gaudin, Germain, 2017. "Vertical bargaining and retail competition: What drives countervailing power?," DICE Discussion Papers 195, University of Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    13. Ioannis Pinopoulos, 2017. "Input price discrimination, two-part tariff contracts and bargaining," Discussion Paper Series 2017_01, Department of Economics, University of Macedonia, revised Jan 2017.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • C78 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Bargaining Theory; Matching Theory
    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L14 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation
    • L81 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Services - - - Retail and Wholesale Trade; e-Commerce

    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:imp:wpaper:5958. 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: (Dr David A Wilson). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/sbimpuk.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.