IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Cournot or Stackelberg competition? A survey on experimental evidence

  • Hildenbrand, Andreas

In this survey, I look into experimental studies on duopolistic quantity competition with homogeneous products and duopolistic price competition with heterogeneous products. The focus is on the sequence of competition. That is, I summarize and analyze experimental studies checking Cournot competition against Stackelberg competition. I find that while Stackelberg equilibrium outcomes are seldom under quantity competition, under price competition, the Stackelberg equilibrium prediction seems to be more appropriate. However, after discussing the experimental setups, I conclude that some methodological problems are present. Moreover, I make recommendations for further research.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
File Function: original version
Download Restriction: no

File URL:
File Function: revised version
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 24468.

in new window

Date of creation: 17 Aug 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:24468
Contact details of provider: Postal: Schackstr. 4, D-80539 Munich, Germany
Phone: +49-(0)89-2180-2219
Fax: +49-(0)89-2180-3900
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. AMIR, Rabah & STEPANOVA, Anna, 2004. "Second-mover advantage and price leadership in Bertrand duopoly," CORE Discussion Papers 2004037, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  2. Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., 1999. "A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation," Munich Reprints in Economics 20650, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
  3. Fonseca, M.A. & Müller, W. & Normann, H.T., 2006. "Endogenous timing in duopoly : Experimental evidence," Other publications TiSEM 4ce35136-68ab-4ee4-a119-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  4. Huck, Steffen & Müller, Wieland & Normann, Hans-Theo, 1999. "Stackelberg beats Cournot: On collusion and efficiency in experimental markets," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1999,32, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
  5. George J. Stigler, 1947. "The Kinky Oligopoly Demand Curve and Rigid Prices," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55, pages 432.
  6. van Damme, Eric & Hurkens, Sjaak, 2004. "Endogenous price leadership," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 404-420, May.
  7. Steven D. Sklivas, 1987. "The Strategic Choice of Managerial Incentives," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(3), pages 452-458, Autumn.
  8. Müller, W., 2003. "Allowing for Two Production Periods in the Cournot Duopoly : Experimental Evidence," Discussion Paper 2003-42, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
  9. Huck, S. & Müller, W. & Normann, H.T., 2002. "To commit or not to commit : Endogenous timing in experimental duopoly markets," Other publications TiSEM 52f12df4-ce93-42ae-b8f4-5, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  10. Camerer, Colin F. & Hogarth, Robin M., 1999. "The Effects of Financial Incentives in Experiments: A Review and Capital-Labor-Production Framework," Working Papers 1059, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
  11. Chaim Fershtman & Kenneth L Judd, 1984. "Equilibrium Incentives in Oligopoly," Discussion Papers 642, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  12. Guth, Werner & Muller, Wieland & Spiegel, Yossi, 2006. "Noisy leadership: An experimental approach," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 37-62, October.
  13. Robin Cubitt, 2005. "Experiments and the domain of economic theory," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(2), pages 197-210.
  14. Binmore, Ken, 1999. "Why Experiment in Economics?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(453), pages F16-24, February.
  15. Ellingsen, Tore, 1995. "On flexibility in oligopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 83-89, April.
  16. Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt, 2001. "Ten Little Treasures of Game Theory and Ten Intuitive Contradictions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1402-1422, December.
  17. Steffen Huck & Wieland Mueller, 1998. "Perfect versus imperfect observability---An experimental test of Bagwell's result," Experimental 9804001, EconWPA.
  18. Guth, Werner & Schmittberger, Rolf & Schwarze, Bernd, 1982. "An experimental analysis of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 367-388, December.
  19. repec:oup:restud:v:59:y:1992:i:1:p:143-62 is not listed on IDEAS
  20. W. Müller, 1999. "The quality of the signal matters - A note on imperfect observability and the timing of moves," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1999,17, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
  21. Smith, Vernon L & Walker, James M, 1993. "Monetary Rewards and Decision Cost in Experimental Economics," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 31(2), pages 245-61, April.
  22. Miguel Fonseca & Steffen Huck & Hans-Theo Normann, 2005. "Playing Cournot although they shouldn’t," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 669-677, 04.
  23. Hamilton, J.H. & Slutsky, S.M., 1988. "Endogenous Timing In Duopoly Games: Stackelberg Or Cournot Equilibria," Papers 88-4, Florida - College of Business Administration.
  24. Pastine, Ivan & Pastine, Tuvana, 2004. "Cost of delay and endogenous price leadership," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 135-145, January.
  25. Basu, Kaushik, 1994. "The Traveler's Dilemma: Paradoxes of Rationality in Game Theory," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(2), pages 391-95, May.
  26. Shakun Datta Mago & Emmanuel Dechenaux, 2009. "Price leadership and firm size asymmetry: an experimental analysis," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 289-317, September.
  27. S.N. O'Higgins & Arturo Palomba & Patrizia Sbriglia, 2010. "Second Mover Advantage and Bertrand Dynamic Competition: An Experiment," Labsi Experimental Economics Laboratory University of Siena 028, University of Siena.
  28. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, June.
  29. Saloner, Garth, 1987. "Cournot duopoly with two production periods," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 183-187, June.
  30. Guth, Werner & Tietz, Reinhard, 1990. "Ultimatum bargaining behavior : A survey and comparison of experimental results," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 11(3), pages 417-449, September.
  31. Vickers, John, 1985. "Delegation and the Theory of the Firm," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 95(380a), pages 138-47, Supplemen.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:24468. 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: (Ekkehart Schlicht)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.