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

Output Commitment through Product Bundling: Experimental Evidence

We analyze the impact of product bundling in experimental markets. A firm has monopoly power in one market but faces competition by a second firm in another market. We compare treatments where the monopolist can bundle its two products to treatments where it cannot, and we contrast simultaneous and sequential order of moves. Our data indicate support for the theory of product bundling, even though substantial payoff differences between players exist. With bundling and simultaneous moves, the monopolist offers the predicted number of units. When the monopolist is the Stackelberg leader, the predicted equilibrium is better attained with bundling although in theory bundling should not make a difference here. In sum: bundling works as a commitment device that enables the transfer of market power from one market to another.

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:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University of Vienna, Department of Economics in its series Vienna Economics Papers with number 1112.

in new window

Date of creation: Dec 2011
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:vie:viennp:1112
Contact details of provider: Web page:

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. Doruk İriş & Luís Santos-Pinto, 2014. "Experimental Cournot oligopoly and inequity aversion," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 76(1), pages 31-45, January.
  2. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
  3. Hans-Theo Normann & Bradley J. Ruffle & Christopher M. Sndyer, 2003. "Do Buyer-Size Discounts Depend on the Curvature of the Surplus Function? Experimental Tests of Bargaining Models," Experimental 0308001, EconWPA.
  4. Müller, W., 2006. "Allowing for two production periods in the Cournot duopoly : Experimental evidence," Other publications TiSEM 357e4d3c-5d3b-43ee-8d03-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
  5. Mark Armstrong & Steffen Huck, 2011. "Behavioral Economics as Applied to Firms: A Primer," Antitrust Chronicle, Competition Policy International, vol. 1.
  6. Adams, William James & Yellen, Janet L, 1976. "Commodity Bundling and the Burden of Monopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 90(3), pages 475-98, August.
  7. Santos-Pinto, Luís, 2008. "Making sense of the experimental evidence on endogenous timing in duopoly markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 68(3-4), pages 657-666, December.
  8. Huck, Steffen & Muller, Wieland & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2002. "To Commit or Not to Commit: Endogenous Timing in Experimental Duopoly Markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 240-264, February.
  9. Jonathan H Hamilton & James F. Klein & Eytan Sheshinski & Steven M. Slutsky, 1994. "Quantity Competition in a Spatial Model," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 27(4), pages 903-17, November.
  10. Cox, J. & Friedman, D. & Gjerstad, S., 2006. "A Trackable Model of Reciprocity and Fairness," Purdue University Economics Working Papers 1181, Purdue University, Department of Economics.
  11. James Andreoni & B. Douglas Bernheim, 2007. "Social Image and the 50-50 Norm: A Theoretical and Experimental Analysis of Audience Effects," Discussion Papers 07-030, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
  12. Gupta, Barnali & Pal, Debashis & Sarkar, Jyotirmoy, 1997. "Spatial Cournot competition and agglomeration in a model of location choice," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 261-282, June.
  13. Olivier Armantier, 2006. "Do Wealth Differences Affect Fairness Considerations?," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 47(2), pages 391-429, 05.
  14. Smith, Angela M., 2011. "An experimental study of exclusive contracts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 4-13, January.
  15. 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 1850-77, December.
  16. Fehr, Ernst & Schmidt, Klaus M., . "A theory of fairness, competition, and cooperation," Chapters in Economics, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
  17. Hui-Ling Chung & Yan-Shu Lin & Jin-Li Hu, 2013. "Bundling strategy and product differentiation," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 108(3), pages 207-229, April.
  18. Capozza, Dennis R & Van Order, Robert, 1982. "Product Differentiation and the Consistency of Monopolistic Competition: A Spatial Perspective," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1-2), pages 27-39, September.
  19. Guth, Werner & Huck, Steffen & Muller, Wieland, 2001. "The Relevance of Equal Splits in Ultimatum Games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 37(1), pages 161-169, October.
  20. Miguel Fonseca & Steffen Huck & Hans-Theo Normann, 2005. "Playing Cournot although they shouldn’t," Economic Theory, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 669-677, 04.
  21. Holt, Charles A, 1985. "An Experimental Test of the Consistent-Conjectures Hypothesis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 314-25, June.
  22. Osborne, Martin J & Pitchik, Carolyn, 1987. "Equilibrium in Hotelling's Model of Spatial Competition," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 911-22, July.
  23. Gomez, Rosario & Goeree, Jacob K., 2008. "Predatory Pricing: Rare Like a Unicorn?," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, Elsevier.
  24. Forsythe Robert & Horowitz Joel L. & Savin N. E. & Sefton Martin, 1994. "Fairness in Simple Bargaining Experiments," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 347-369, May.
  25. Barry Nalebuff, 2004. "Bundling as an Entry Barrier," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 119(1), pages 159-187, February.
  26. Hinloopen, Jeroen & van Marrewijk, Charles, 1999. "On the limits and possibilities of the principle of minimum differentiation1," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(5), pages 735-750, July.
  27. Stephen Martin, 1998. "Strategic and Welfare Implications of Bundling," CIE Discussion Papers 1998-14, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics. Centre for Industrial Economics.
  28. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
  29. d'Aspremont, C & Gabszewicz, Jean Jaskold & Thisse, J-F, 1979. "On Hotelling's "Stability in Competition"," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 47(5), pages 1145-50, September.
  30. Anderson, Simon P & Neven, Damien J, 1991. "Cournot Competition Yields Spatial Agglomeration," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 32(4), pages 793-808, November.
  31. B. Curtis Eaton & Roger Ware, 1987. "A Theory of Market Structure with Sequential Entry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(1), pages 1-16, Spring.
  32. 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.
  33. Huck, Steffen & Muller, Wieland & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2001. "Stackelberg Beats Cournot: On Collusion and Efficiency in Experimental Markets," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 111(474), pages 749-65, October.
  34. Shaked, A, 1982. "Existence and Computation of Mixed Strategy Nash Equilibrium for 3-Firms Location Problem," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(1-2), pages 93-96, September.
  35. Anil Caliskan & David Porter & Stephen Rassenti & Vernon L. Smith & Bart J. Wilson, 2007. "Exclusionary Bundling and the Effects of a Competitive Fringe," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(1), pages 109-132, March.
  36. S. Berninghaus & W. Güth, 2007. "Experimental Economics," Chapters, in: Elgar Companion to Neo-Schumpeterian Economics, chapter 66 Edward Elgar.
  37. Hinloopen,Jeroen (ed.), 2009. "Experiments and Competition Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521493420.
  38. Jeroen Hinloopen, 2002. "Price regulation in a spatial duopoly with possible non-buyers," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 36(1), pages 19-39.
  39. 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.
  40. Steven C. Salop, 1979. "Monopolistic Competition with Outside Goods," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 141-156, Spring.
  41. Anderson, Simon P & Engers, Maxim, 1994. "Spatial Competition with Price-Taking Firms," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 61(242), pages 125-36, May.
  42. McAfee, R Preston & McMillan, John & Whinston, Michael D, 1989. "Multiproduct Monopoly, Commodity Bundling, and Correlation of Values," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 104(2), pages 371-83, May.
  43. Martin, Stephen & Normann, Hans-Theo & Snyder, Christopher M, 2001. "Vertical Foreclosure in Experimental Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(3), pages 466-96, Autumn.
  44. Whinston, Michael D, 1990. "Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 837-59, September.
  45. Sau-Him Paul Lau & Felix Leung, 2010. "Estimating a Parsimonious Model of Inequality Aversion in Stackelberg Duopoly Experiments," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 72(5), pages 669-686, October.
  46. Edward C. Prescott & Michael Visscher, 1977. "Sequential Location among Firms with Foresight," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 8(2), pages 378-393, Autumn.
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:vie:viennp:1112. 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: (Paper Administrator)

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.