Strategic Buyers and Market Entry
This paper tests two basic assumptions underlying court made or statutory provisions prohibiting predatory pricing. Such prohibitions are usually based on the economic grounds that monopolistic pricing is likely to occur in the long run, causing harm to competition and consumers. The first assumption under scrutiny is that customers will accept monopolistic prices during the subsequent phase of recoupment, even though they have become accustomed to low prices during the price war. The second assumption is that no competitor will (re-)enter the market in this subsequent phase. Our two experiments indicate that both assumptions are not backed up by actual decision making both of consumers and of competitors. Moreover, we find that consumers use their market power in order to maintain long-run competition.
|Date of creation:||2009|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Hauptstr. 90, CH-8280 Kreuzlingen 2|
Phone: +41-71-677 05 10
Fax: +41-71-677 05 11
Web page: http://www.twi-kreuzlingen.ch/
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.:
- Armin Falk & Urs Fischbacher, 2001.
"A Theory of Reciprocity,"
CESifo Working Paper Series
457, CESifo Group Munich.
- Harrison, Glenn W., 1988. "Predatory pricing in a multiple market experiment : A note," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 405-417, June.
- Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
- Capra, C. Monica & Goeree, Jacob K. & Gomez, Rosario & Holt, Charles A., 2000. "Predation, asymmetric information and strategic behavior in the classroom: an experimental approach to the teaching of industrial organization," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 205-225, January.
- Ernst Fehr & Urs Fischbacher, .
"Third Party Punishment and Social Norms,"
IEW - Working Papers
106, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
- Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1982.
"Predation, reputation, and entry deterrence,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 280-312, August.
- Paul Milgrom & John Roberts, 1980. "Predation, Reputation, and Entry Deterrence," Discussion Papers 427, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Paul Milgrom & John Roberts, 1997. "Predation, reputation , and entry deterrence," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1460, David K. Levine.
- 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.
- Rosario Gomez & Jacob K. Goeree & Charles A. Holt, 1999.
"Predatory Pricing: Rare Like a Unicorn?,"
Virginia Economics Online Papers
339, University of Virginia, Department of Economics.
- Isaac, R Mark & Smith, Vernon L, 1985. "In Search of Predatory Pricing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(2), pages 320-45, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:twi:respas:0044. 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: (Gregor Govtvan)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.