IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pav/demwpp/demwp0004.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Monopolistic Competition: CES Redux?

Author

Listed:
  • Paolo Bertoletti

    () (Department of Economics and Management, University of Pavia)

  • Paolo Epifani

    () (Department of Economics, IGIER and Baffi Centre, Università Bocconi)

Abstract

We investigate competitive, selection and reallocation effects in monopolistic competition trade models. We argue that departing from CES preferences in an otherwise standard Dixit-Stiglitz setup with additive preferences seems to involve implausible assumptions about consumer behavior and inconsistent competitive effects. In the presence of trade costs, selection effects à la Melitz (2003) are instead generally robust to the assumptions about preferences. However, they are unambiguously associated to aggregate productivity gains only when preferences are CES. We also study competitive effects in alternative monopolistic competition settings featuring non-additive preferences, strategic interaction and consumers’ preference for an ideal variety. We find that none of the these setups delivers a compelling pro-competitive mechanism. Overall, our results suggest that in monopolistic competition, consistent with CES preferences, larger markets select more aggressively on productivity rather than forcing firms to move down their average cost curves.

Suggested Citation

  • Paolo Bertoletti & Paolo Epifani, 2012. "Monopolistic Competition: CES Redux?," DEM Working Papers Series 004, University of Pavia, Department of Economics and Management.
  • Handle: RePEc:pav:demwpp:demwp0004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://economia.unipv.it/docs/dipeco/quad/ps/RePEc/pav/demwpp/DEMWP0004.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Hummels & Volodymyr Lugovskyy, 2009. "International Pricing in a Generalized Model of Ideal Variety," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 41(s1), pages 3-33, February.
    2. Marc J. Melitz & Daniel Trefler, 2012. "Gains from Trade When Firms Matter," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 26(2), pages 91-118, Spring.
    3. Pettengill, John S, 1979. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(5), pages 957-960, December.
    4. Evgeny Zhelobodko & Sergey Kokovin & Mathieu Parenti & Jacques‐François Thisse, 2012. "Monopolistic Competition: Beyond the Constant Elasticity of Substitution," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 80(6), pages 2765-2784, November.
    5. Peter Neary & Monika Mrazova, 2011. "Selection Effects with Heterogeneous Firms," Economics Series Working Papers 588, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    6. Marc J. Melitz & Gianmarco I. P. Ottaviano, 2008. "Market Size, Trade, and Productivity," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(1), pages 295-316.
    7. Feenstra, Robert C., 2003. "A homothetic utility function for monopolistic competition models, without constant price elasticity," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 78(1), pages 79-86, January.
    8. Krugman, Paul, 1980. "Scale Economies, Product Differentiation, and the Pattern of Trade," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(5), pages 950-959, December.
    9. Behrens, Kristian & Murata, Yasusada, 2012. "Trade, competition, and efficiency," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(1), pages 1-17.
    10. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1977. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 297-308, June.
    11. J. Peter Neary, 2002. "Globalisation and market structure," Working Papers 200220, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    12. Blackorby, Charles & Russell, R Robert, 1989. "Will the Real Elasticity of Substitution Please Stand Up? (A Comparison of the Allen/Uzawa and Morishima Elasticities)," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(4), pages 882-888, September.
    13. J. Peter Neary, 2009. "Putting the "New" into New Trade Theory: Paul Krugman's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 111(2), pages 217-250, June.
    14. Bertoletti, Paolo, 2006. "Logarithmic quasi-homothetic preferences," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 90(3), pages 433-439, March.
    15. Krugman, Paul R., 1979. "Increasing returns, monopolistic competition, and international trade," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 469-479, November.
    16. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    17. Marc J. Melitz & Gianmarco I. P. Ottaviano, 2008. "Market Size, Trade, and Productivity (DOI:10.111/j.1467-937x.2007.00463.x)," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 75(3), pages 985-985.
    18. Costas Arkolakis & Arnaud Costinot & Andres Rodriguez-Clare, 2012. "New Trade Models, Same Old Gains?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(1), pages 94-130, February.
    19. J. Peter Neary, 2003. "Presidential Address: Globalization and Market Structure," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(2-3), pages 245-271, 04/05.
    20. Helpman, Elhanan, 1981. "International trade in the presence of product differentiation, economies of scale and monopolistic competition : A Chamberlin-Heckscher-Ohlin approach," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 305-340, August.
    21. Dixit, Avinash K & Stiglitz, Joseph E, 1993. "Monopolistic Competition and Optimum Product Diversity: Reply," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(1), pages 302-304, March.
    22. Lancaster, Kelvin, 1975. "Socially Optimal Product Differentiation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 65(4), pages 567-585, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Monopolistic Competition; CES Preferences; International Trade; Competitive; Selection and Reallocation Effects.;

    JEL classification:

    • F1 - International Economics - - Trade

    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:pav:demwpp:demwp0004. 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: (Alice Albonico). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/dppavit.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.