IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ris/albaec/2016_013.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

An Equilibrium Selection Theory of Monopolization

Author

Listed:
  • Eckert, Andrew

    (University of Alberta, Department of Economics)

  • Klumpp, Tilman

    (University of Alberta, Department of Economics)

  • Su, Xuejuan

    (University of Alberta, Department of Economics)

Abstract

We develop a duopoly model in which firms compete for the market (e.g., investing in process innovation or product development) as well as in the market (e.g., setting quantities or prices). Competition for the market generates multiple equilibria that differ in the firms' investment levels, relative size, and profi tability. We show that monopolization that affects competition in the market can act as an equilibrium selection device in competition for the market. In particular, it eliminates equilibria that are undesirable for the monopolizing rm, while not generating new equilibria. This result complicates the task of determining whether a rm's dominance in a given market is the result of fair competition or unlawful monopolization. We discuss a number of implications for antitrust policy and litigation, and illustrate these by means of two well-known antitrust cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Eckert, Andrew & Klumpp, Tilman & Su, Xuejuan, 2016. "An Equilibrium Selection Theory of Monopolization," Working Papers 2016-13, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:ris:albaec:2016_013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://sites.ualberta.ca/~econwps/2016/wp2016-13.pdf
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Encaoua & Abraham Hollander, 2002. "Competition Policy and Innovation," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 18(1), pages 63-79, Spring.
    2. 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, April.
    3. Harsanyi John C., 1995. "A New Theory of Equilibrium Selection for Games with Incomplete Information," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 10(2), pages 318-332, August.
    4. Whinston, Michael D, 1990. "Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 837-859, September.
    5. William M. Landes, 1974. "An Economic Analysis of the Courts," NBER Chapters, in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 164-214, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Phlips, Louis, 1996. "On the detection of collusion and predation," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 40(3-5), pages 495-510, April.
    7. Tilman Klumpp & Xuejuan Su, 2013. "A theory of perceived discrimination," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 53(1), pages 153-180, May.
    8. Marhsall, Robert C. & Marx, Leslie M., 2014. "The Economics of Collusion: Cartels and Bidding Rings," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262525941, April.
    9. David S. Evans & Richard Schmalensee, 2002. "Some Economic Aspects of Antitrust Analysis in Dynamically Competitive Industries," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2, pages 1-50, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Avinash Dixit, 1979. "A Model of Duopoly Suggesting a Theory of Entry Barriers," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 20-32, Spring.
    11. Andrew F. Daughety & Jennifer F. Reinganum, 2005. "Economic Theories of Settlement Bargaining," Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Papers 0508, Vanderbilt University Department of Economics.
    12. Michael D. Whinston & Ilya R. Segal, 2000. "Naked Exclusion: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 296-309, March.
    13. Joseph Farrell & Michael L. Katz, 2005. "Competition Or Predation? Consumer Coordination, Strategic Pricing And Price Floors In Network Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 203-231, June.
    14. Rasmusen, Eric B & Ramseyer, J Mark & Wiley, John S, Jr, 1991. "Naked Exclusion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1137-1145, December.
    15. Fudenberg, Drew & Tirole, Jean, 1983. "Capital as a commitment: Strategic investment to deter mobility," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 227-250, December.
    16. Bulow, Jeremy I & Geanakoplos, John D & Klemperer, Paul D, 1985. "Multimarket Oligopoly: Strategic Substitutes and Complements," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(3), pages 488-511, June.
    17. Joshua Wright, 2009. "An Evidence-Based Approach to Exclusive Dealing and Loyalty Discounts," Antitrust Chronicle, Competition Policy International, vol. 7.
    18. Greenlee, Patrick & Reitman, David & Sibley, David S., 2008. "An antitrust analysis of bundled loyalty discounts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 1132-1152, September.
    19. A. Michael Spence, 1977. "Entry, Capacity, Investment and Oligopolistic Pricing," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 8(2), pages 534-544, Autumn.
    20. Aghion, Philippe & Bolton, Patrick, 1987. "Contracts as a Barrier to Entry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 388-401, June.
    21. Adam B. Jaffe & Josh Lerner & Scott Stern, 2002. "Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 2," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number jaff02-1.
    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. Klumpp, Tilman, 2021. "Stockpiling and Shortages (the “Toilet Paper Paper")," Working Papers 2021-2, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
    2. Lamantia, Fabio & Pezzino, Mario & Tramontana, Fabio, 2018. "Dynamic analysis of discontinuous best response with innovation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 120-133.
    3. Lamantia, Fabio & Pezzino, Mario & Scardamaglia, Bruno & Tramontana, Fabio, 2022. "A discontinuous model of duopoly with isoelastic demand and innovation costs," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gavin, Sebnem & Ross, Thomas W., 2018. "Long-term contracts as barriers to entry with differentiated products," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 514-537.
    2. Etro, Federico, 2016. "Research in economics and industrial organization," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 511-517.
    3. Lamantia, Fabio & Pezzino, Mario & Tramontana, Fabio, 2018. "Dynamic analysis of discontinuous best response with innovation," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 120-133.
    4. Yong Chao & Guofu Tan & Adam Chi Leung Wong, 2018. "All†units discounts as a partial foreclosure device," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 49(1), pages 155-180, March.
    5. J. Anthony Cookson, 2018. "Anticipated Entry and Entry Deterrence: Evidence from the American Casino Industry," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2325-2344, May.
    6. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, September.
    7. DeGraba, Patrick, 2013. "Naked exclusion by a dominant input supplier: Exclusive contracting and loyalty discounts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 516-526.
    8. Claudia M. Landeo & Kathryn E. Spier, 2009. "Naked Exclusion: An Experimental Study of Contracts with Externalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(5), pages 1850-1877, December.
    9. Smith, Angela M., 2011. "An experimental study of exclusive contracts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 4-13, January.
    10. Rosenkranz, Stephanie & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2001. "Vertikale Unternehmenskooperationen," MPRA Paper 6930, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Kaplow, Louis & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Antitrust," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 1073-1225, Elsevier.
    12. Cédric Argenton, 2010. "Exclusive Quality," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(3), pages 690-716, September.
    13. Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 2002. "The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(2), pages 194-220, Summer.
    14. Fadairo, Muriel & Yu, Jianyu & Lanchimba, Cintya, 2017. "The Choice of Exclusive Dealing: Economic Rationales and Evidence from French Retail Chains," Journal of Retailing, Elsevier, vol. 93(3), pages 317-335.
    15. Brennan, Timothy J., 2000. "The Economics of Competition Policy: Recent Developments and Cautionary Notes in Antitrust and Regulation," Discussion Papers 10716, Resources for the Future.
    16. David Spector, 2011. "Exclusive contracts and demand foreclosure," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 42(4), pages 619-638, December.
    17. Boone, Jan & Müller, Wieland & Suetens, Sigrid, 2009. "Naked exclusion: Towards a behavioral approach to exclusive dealing," CEPR Discussion Papers 7303, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Adrien Hervouet & Michel Trommetter, 2020. "Public-private R&D partnerships: A solution to increase knowledge sharing in R&D cooperation," Working Papers hal-02906270, HAL.
    19. Motta, Massimo & Persson, Lars & Fumagalli, Chiara, 2005. "Exclusive Dealing, Entry and Mergers," CEPR Discussion Papers 4902, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Chen, Chia-Wen, 2014. "Estimating the foreclosure effect of exclusive dealing: Evidence from the entry of specialty beer producers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 47-64.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Monopolization; antitrust; multiple equilibria; indeterminacy; firm behavior;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D40 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - General
    • K20 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - General
    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General

    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:ris:albaec:2016_013. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Joseph Marchand (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deualca.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.