Buyer Countervailing Power versus Monopoly Power: Evidence from Experimental Posted-Offer Markets
Although much research has been devoted to the impact of seller structure on market outcomes, considerably less is known about the influence of buyer structure. We examine the impact of buyer concentration on the pricing of a monopolist. Markets with both two and four buyers achieve prices well below the monopoly price, attaining even competitive levels - sometimes even lower. Moreover, markets with only two buyers show significantly lower prices than those with four buyers. We design an additional pair of treatments to pinpoint the source of this difference. We attribute the lower prices in the two-buyer treatment to the monopolist pricing more cautiously when there are fewer buyers in order to avoid costly losses in sales. Buyer concentration is thus an effective source of countervailing power: even an unregulated monopolist that faces no possible threat of entry may price competitively
|Date of creation:||01 Apr 2002|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Manor Rd. Building, Oxford, OX1 3UQ|
Web page: http://www.economics.ox.ac.uk/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Don Coursey & R. Mark Isaac & Margaret Luke & Vernon L. Smith, 1984. "Market Contestability in the Presence of Sunk (Entry) Costs," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(1), pages 69-84, Spring.
- Dufwenberg, Martin & Gneezy, Uri, 2000.
"Price competition and market concentration: an experimental study,"
International Journal of Industrial Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 7-22, January.
- Dufwenberg, M. & Gneezy, U., 1998. "Price Competition and Market COncentration: An Experimental Study," Papers 1998-08, Uppsala - Working Paper Series.
- Dufwenberg, Martin & Gneezy, Uri, 1999. "Price Competition and Market Concentration: An experimental Study," Research Papers in Economics 1999:4, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
- Dufwenberg, Martin & Gneezy, Uri, 1998. "Price Competition and Market Concentration: An Experimental Study," Working Paper Series 1998:8, Uppsala University, Department of Economics.
- Christopher M. Snyder, 1996. "A Dynamic Theory of Countervailing Power," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(4), pages 747-769, Winter.
- Juergen Peters, 1998. "Supplier and Buyer Market Power, Appropriability and Innovation Activities - Evidence for the German Automobile Industry -," Discussion Paper Series 173, Universitaet Augsburg, Institute for Economics.
- Holt, Charles A, 1989.
"The Exercise of Market Power in Laboratory Experiments,"
Journal of Law and Economics,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(2), pages S107-30, October.
- Davis, Douglas D. & Holt, Charles A., 2008. "The Exercise of Market Power in Laboratory Experiments," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier.
- Sara Fisher Ellison & Christopher M. Snyder, 2010. "COUNTERVAILING POWER IN WHOLESALE PHARMACEUTICALS -super-," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(1), pages 32-53, 03.
- Inderst, Roman & Wey, Christian, 2001.
"Bargaining, Mergers and Technology Choice in Bilaterally Oligopolistic Industries,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
2981, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- 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.
- Roman Inderst & Christian Wey, 2001. "Bargaining, Mergers, and Technology Choice in Bilaterally Oligopolistic Industries," CIG Working Papers FS IV 01-19, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
- Finsinger, Jorg & Vogelsang, Ingo, 1981. "Alternative Institutional Frameworks for Price Incentive Mechanism," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(3), pages 388-404.
- Loeb, Martin & Magat, Wesley A, 1979. "A Decentralized Method for Utility Regulation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(2), pages 399-404, October.
- Winston, Clifford, 1993. "Economic Deregulation: Days of Reckoning for Microeconomists," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 31(3), pages 1263-89, September.
- Coursey, Don & Isaac, R Mark & Smith, Vernon L, 1984. "Natural Monopoly and Contested Markets: Some Experimental Results," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(1), pages 91-113, April.
- Baumol, William J, 1982. "Contestable Markets: An Uprising in the Theory of Industry Structure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 1-15, March.
- Lustgarten, Steven H, 1975. "The Impact of Buyer Concentration in Manufacturing Industries," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 57(2), pages 125-32, May.
- Björnerstedt, Jonas & Stennek, Johan, 2001.
CEPR Discussion Papers
2864, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Tasneem Chipty & Christopher M. Snyder, 1999. "The Role Of Firm Size In Bilateral Bargaining: A Study Of The Cable Television Industry," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 81(2), pages 326-340, May.
- Steffen Huck & Hans-Theo Normann & Jörg Oechssler, 2001.
"Two are Few and Four are Many: Number Effects in Experimental Oligopolies,"
Bonn Econ Discussion Papers
bgse12_2001, University of Bonn, Germany.
- Huck, Steffen & Normann, Hans-Theo & Oechssler, Jorg, 2004. "Two are few and four are many: number effects in experimental oligopolies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 435-446, April.
- Björnerstedt, Jonas & Stennek, Johan, 2001. "Bilateral Oligopoly," Working Paper Series 555, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
- Glenn W. Harrison & Michael McKee, 1985. "Monopoly Behavior, Decentralized Regulation, and Contestable Markets: An Experimental Evaluation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(1), pages 51-69, Spring.
- repec:hhs:iuiwop:555 is not listed on IDEAS
- Jon Ketcham & Vernon L. Smith & Arlington W. Williams, 1984. "A Comparison of Posted-Offer and Double-Auction Pricing Institutions," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(4), pages 595-614.
- Anderson, T. W. & Hsiao, Cheng, 1982. "Formulation and estimation of dynamic models using panel data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 47-82, January.
- Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1987. "Competition and the Number of Firms in a Market: Are Duopolies More Competitive than Atomistic Markets?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(5), pages 1041-61, October.
- Cason, Timothy N. & Friedman, Daniel & Milam, Garrett H., 2003. "Bargaining versus posted price competition in customer markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 223-251, February.
- Snyder, Christopher M., 1998. "Why do larger buyers pay lower prices? Intense supplier competition," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 205-209, February.
- James C. Cox & R. Mark Isaac, 1987. "Mechanisms for Incentive Regulation: Theory and Experiment," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(3), pages 348-359, Autumn.
- Charles J. Thomas & Bart J. Wilson, 2002. "A Comparison of Auctions and Multilateral Negotiations," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(1), pages 140-155, Spring.
- Bradley J. Ruffle, 2000. "Some factors affecting demand withholding in posted-offer markets," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 16(3), pages 529-544.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oxf:wpaper:2002-w14. 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: (Monica Birds)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.