IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Market Structure, Bargaining, and Technology Choice


  • Roman Inderst
  • Christian Wey


The first part of this paper analyzes the impact of horizontal mergers of suppliers or retailers on their respective bargaining power. In contrast to previous approaches, we suppose that parties resolve the bargaining problem efficiently. Moreover, by ensuring that demand is independent at all retailers we exclude monopolization effects. We find that downstream mergers are more likely (less likely) if suppliers have increasing (decreasing) unit costs, while upstream mergers are more likely (less likely) if goods are substitutes (complements). In both cases a merger enables the involved parties to gain access to inframarginal rents. In the second part of the paper we explore how the role of bargaining power affects technology choice under different market structures. We isolate two effects. First, if retailers are non-integrated, suppliers focus disproportionately more on inframarginal cost reduction. Second, this bias is mitigated if goods are substitutes and suppliers are non-integrated as competition exerts a disciplining force. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG - (Horizontale Unternehmenszusammenschlüsse, Verhandlungen und die Wahl der Produktionstechnologie) Der erste Teil des Aufsatzes zeigt, wie sich horizontale Zusammenschlüsse zwischen Produzenten und Einzelhändlern auf die Verhandlungsmacht der Vertragsparteien auswirken. Im Gegensatz zu vorhergehenden Ansätzen nehmen wir an, daß die Parteien ihre Verhandlungsprobleme effizient lösen. Des weiteren unterstellen wir, daß die Einzelhändler Märkte bedienen, die unabhängig voneinander sind, wodurch Monopolisierungsvorteile ausgeschlossen werden. Unsere Ergebnisse zeigen, daß Einzelhändler einen Zusammenschluß favorisieren, wenn die Stückkosten der Produzenten mit zunehmender Ausbringungsmenge ansteigen. Umgekehrt sind die gemeinsamen Gewinne unabhängiger Einzelhändler höher als bei einem Zusammenschluß, wenn die Stückkosten der Produzenten fallend verlaufen. Die Produzenten können ihre gemeinsamen Gewinne durch eine Fusion steigern, wenn ihre Erzeugnisse substituierbar sind. Stehen die Güter der Produzenten in einem komplementären Verhältnis zueinander, so ist ein Zusammenschluß nicht vorteilhaft. Diese Ergebnisse sind unabhängig von der Struktur der anderen Marktseite. Allgemein gilt sowohl für die Produzenten als auch für die Einzelhändler, daß ein Zusammenschluß den Zugriff auf inframarginale Renten der anderen Marktseite ermöglicht. Im zweiten Teil der Arbeit untersuchen wir, wie die Berücksichtigung von Verhandlungsmacht die Technologiewahl eines Produzenten bei unterschiedlichen Marktstrukturen beeinflußt. Wir können zwei Effekte isolieren. (1) Produzenten haben einen Anreiz Kosteneinsparungen bei inframarginalen Ausbringungsmengen zu Lasten von höheren Gesamtkosten zu tauschen, wenn die Einzelhändler nicht zusammengeschlossen sind. (2) Diese Verzerrung hin zu einer ineffizienten Technologiewahl wird abgemildert, wenn die Güter substituierbar sind und die Produzenten unabhängig agieren, weil Konkurrenz eine disziplinierende Funktion ausübt.

Suggested Citation

  • Roman Inderst & Christian Wey, 2000. "Market Structure, Bargaining, and Technology Choice," CIG Working Papers FS IV 00-12, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
  • Handle: RePEc:wzb:wzebiv:fsiv00-12

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. Farrell, Joseph & Shapiro, Carl, 1990. "Horizontal Mergers: An Equilibrium Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 107-126, March.
    3. Horn, Henrik & Wolinsky, Asher, 1988. "Worker Substitutability and Patterns of Unionisation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 98(391), pages 484-497, June.
    4. Leonardo Felli & Kevin Roberts, 2016. "Does Competition Solve the Hold-up Problem?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 83(329), pages 172-200, January.
    5. Makowski, Louis & Ostroy, Joseph M, 1995. "Appropriation and Efficiency: A Revision of the First Theorem of Welfare Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 808-827, September.
    6. Stephen W. Salant & Sheldon Switzer & Robert J. Reynolds, 1983. "Losses From Horizontal Merger: The Effects of an Exogenous Change in Industry Structure on Cournot-Nash Equilibrium," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 98(2), pages 185-199.
    7. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 2005. "Bargaining and Markets," Levine's Bibliography 666156000000000515, UCLA Department of Economics.
    8. Henrick Horn & Asher Wolinsky, 1988. "Bilateral Monopolies and Incentives for Merger," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(3), pages 408-419, Autumn.
    9. Perry, Martin K & Porter, Robert H, 1985. "Oligopoly and the Incentive for Horizontal Merger," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(1), pages 219-227, March.
    10. Stole, Lars A & Zwiebel, Jeffrey, 1996. "Organizational Design and Technology Choice under Intrafirm Bargaining," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(1), pages 195-222, March.
    11. Dobson, Paul W & Waterson, Michael, 1997. "Countervailing Power and Consumer Prices," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(441), pages 418-430, March.
    12. Francis Bloch, 1995. "Endogenous Structures of Association in Oligopolies," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(3), pages 537-556, Autumn.
    13. Lars A. Stole & Jeffrey Zwiebel, 1996. "Intra-firm Bargaining under Non-binding Contracts," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 63(3), pages 375-410.
    14. Bester, Helmut & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 1993. "The incentives for cost reduction in a differentiated industry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 519-534.
    15. Gaudet, Gerard & Salant, Stephen W., 1992. "Mergers of producers of perfect complements competing in price," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 359-364, July.
    16. Gaudet, Gerard & Salant, Stephen W, 1991. "Increasing the Profits of a Subset of Firms in Oligopoly Models with Strategic Substitutes," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 658-665, June.
    17. Byoung Heon Jun, 1989. "Non-cooperative Bargaining and Union Formation," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 56(1), pages 59-76.
    18. McAfee, R Preston & Schwartz, Marius, 1994. "Opportunism in Multilateral Vertical Contracting: Nondiscrimination, Exclusivity, and Uniformity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 210-230, March.
    19. Morton I. Kamien & Israel Zang, 1990. "The Limits of Monopolization Through Acquisition," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 105(2), pages 465-499.
    20. Raymond Deneckere & Carl Davidson, 1985. "Incentives to Form Coalitions with Bertrand Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(4), pages 473-486, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Merger; Bargaining Power; Technology Choice;


    Access and download statistics


    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:wzb:wzebiv:fsiv00-12. 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: (Jennifer Rontganger). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.