Investment Coordination and Demand Complementarities
This paper analyzes the possibility of investment coordination leading to outcomes which dominate non-investment equilibria in the presence of monopolistic competition. We establish when complementarity leads to investment coordination failures and explore the welfare implications of coordinated investment. Our main results caution against demand complementarities as a motive for investment coordination. We find that: 1) generally, a strict notion of complementarity (Hicks) is necessary for the existence of an investment coordination problem and 2) that when the problem does exist, coordination often lowers social welfare.
|Date of creation:||Oct 1996|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (613) 533-2250
Fax: (613) 533-6668
Web page: http://qed.econ.queensu.ca/
More information through EDIRC
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:qed:wpaper:933. 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: (Mark Babcock)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.