IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

Bargaining, Mergers, and Technology Choice in Bilaterally Oligopolistic Industries

  • Roman Inderst
  • Christian Wey

This paper provides a conceptual framework of multilateral bargaining in a bilaterally oligopolistic industry to analyze the motivations for horizontal mergers, technology choice, and their welfare implications. We first analyze the implication of market structure for the distribution of industry profits. We find that retailer mergers are more likely (less likely) if suppliers have increasing (decreasing) unit costs, while supplier mergers are more likely (less likely) if goods are substitutes (complements). In a second step we explore how market structure affects suppliers' technology choice, which reflects a trade-off between inframarginal and marginal production costs. We find that suppliers focus more on marginal cost reduction if (i) retailers are integrated and (ii) suppliers are non-integrated. In a final step we consider the whole picture where both market structure and (subsequent) technology choice are endogenous. Analyzing the equilibrium market structure, we find cases where retailers become integrated to induce suppliers to choose a more efficient technology, even though integration weakens their bargaining position. In this case the merger benefits all parties, i.e., suppliers, retailers, and even consumers. However, we also show that the equilibrium market structure does often not maximize welfare. ZUSAMMENFASSUNG - (Verhandlungen, Fusionen und Technologiewahl in bilateralen Oligopolen) Diese Arbeit entwickelt einen Modellrahmen für multilaterale Verhandlungen in bilateralen Oligopolen, um die Fusions- und Technologiewahlanreize der Unternehmen sowie deren Wohlfahrtswirkungen zu untersuchen. Der wichtigste Anwendungsbereich des Modells sind die Firmenbeziehungen zwischen Einzelhandelsketten und Herstellerfirmen. Beide Handelsstufen sind weder vollkommen monopolisiert noch perfekt fragmentiert. Vielmehr stehen auf jeder Handelsstufe wenige "große" Firmen miteinander in Konkurrenz. Die Geschäftbeziehungen zwischen Herstellern und Einzelhandel sind zu dem multilateral angelegt, so dass ein Hersteller seine Produkte typischerweise an mehrere Einzelhandelsketten verkauft und Unternehmen des Einzelhandels mehrere Herstellermarken anbieten. Der Aufsatz analysiert zuerst, wie die Marktstruktur die Verteilung der Industrieprofite zwischen den Firmen bestimmt, woraus sich eindeutige Bedingungen für profitable Zusammenschlüsse ableiten lassen: Firmen des Einzelhandels stellen sich durch einen Zusammenschluss besser (schlechter), wenn die Herstellerfirmen mit steigenden (fallenden) Durchschnittskosten produzieren. Herstellerfirmen profitieren durch einen Zusammenschluss, wenn sie substituierbare Güter anbieten, während sie sich durch eine Fusion schlechter stellen, wenn sie komplementäre Güter absetzen. Der nächste Schritt der Untersuchung erkundet die Wirkungen der Marktstruktur auf die Technologiewahlanreize der Hersteller, wobei die Adaption einer neuen Technologie einerseits mit niedrigeren marginalen Kosten und andererseits mit höheren inframarginalen (oder Fix-) Kosten einhergeht. Es zeigt sich, daß Herstellerfirmen höhere Anreize zur Senkung ihrer marginalen Kosten haben, wenn (i) der Einzelhandel vollständig monopolisiert ist und (ii) die Herstellerfirmen nicht integriert sind. Die Untersuchung stellt damit die aktuellen Konzentrationsprozesse im Einzelhandel in ein neues Licht. Zusammenschlüsse zwischen Einzelhändlern führen dazu, dass Hersteller einen relativ höheren Anteil ihrer marginalen Kosten tragen müssen, was wiederum die Anreizen zur Verringerung derselben vergrößert. Dieses Ergebnis steht in einem scharfen Gegensatz zu der häufig geäußerten Hypothese, dass "mächtige" Einzelhandelsketten die Gewinne der Herstellerfirmen schmälern und folglich die Innovationstätigkeit im Produktionssektor nachhaltig beeinträchtigen. In dem letzen Schritt der Untersuchung werden die Marktstruktur und die nachfolgende Technologiewahl der Herstellerfirmen endogen bestimmt. Die Analyse der gleichgewichtigen Marktstruktur bei endogener Technologiewahl fördert die Möglichkeit "strategischer Fusionen" zwischen Einzelhandelsfirmen zu Tage. In diesem Fall schließen sich zwei Einzelhändler zusammen, um die Herstellerfirmen zur Wahl der effizienten Technologie zu bewegen, obwohl die Einzelhändler durch die Fusion ihre Verhandlungsposition gegenüber den Herstellern schwächen. Interessanterweise stellen sich durch "strategische Einzelhandelsfusionen" alle Marktpartizipanten besser: die Hersteller, der Einzelhandel und die Konsumenten. Es zeigt sich allerdings auch, dass die endogen bestimmte Marktstruktur nicht immer die Wohlfahrt maximiert.

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 Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG) in its series CIG Working Papers with number FS IV 01-19.

in new window

Length: 47 pages
Date of creation: Nov 2001
Publication status: Published in RAND Journal of Economics , Vol. 34(1), 2003, pp. 1-19.
Handle: RePEc:wzb:wzebiv:fsiv01-19
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Reichpietschufer 50, 10785 Berlin, Germany

Phone: (++49)(30) 25491-441
Fax: (++49)(30) 25491-442
Web page:

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.:

as in new window
  1. George Stigler, 1939. "Production and Distribution in the Short Run," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47, pages 305-305.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. Martin Gaynor & Deborah Haas-Wilson, 1998. "Change, Consolidation, and Competition in Health Care Markets," NBER Working Papers 6701, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  5. Inderst, Roman, 2000. "Multi-issue Bargaining with Endogenous Agenda," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 64-82, January.
  6. Spence, Michael, 1984. "Cost Reduction, Competition, and Industry Performance," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 52(1), pages 101-121, January.
  7. Oliver Hart & John Moore, 1988. "Property Rights and the Nature of the Firm," Working papers 495, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
  8. Patrick Legros, 1987. "Disadvantageous syndicates and stable cartels: the case of the nucleolus," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/7046, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
  9. Vives, Xavier, 1986. "Commitment, flexibility and market outcomes," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 4(2), pages 217-229, June.
  10. Grossman, Sanford J & Hart, Oliver, 1985. "The Cost and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration," CEPR Discussion Papers 70, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  11. Qiu, Larry D., 1997. "On the Dynamic Efficiency of Bertrand and Cournot Equilibria," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 75(1), pages 213-229, July.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. Flaherty, M Therese, 1980. "Industry Structure and Cost-Reducing Investment," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 48(5), pages 1187-1209, July.
  15. B. Douglas Bernheim & Michael D. Whinston, "undated". "Exclusive Dealing," Working Papers 96008, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
  16. Michael Waterson, 1980. "Price-Cost Margins and Successive Market Power," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 94(1), pages 135-150.
  17. Michael A. Salinger, 1988. "Vertical Mergers and Market Foreclosure," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 103(2), pages 345-356.
  18. Roger B. Myerson, 1976. "Graphs and Cooperation in Games," Discussion Papers 246, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
  19. 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.
  20. Joseph Farrell and Carl Shapiro., 1988. "Horizontal Mergers: An Equilibrium Analysis," Economics Working Papers 8880, University of California at Berkeley.
  21. 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.
  22. Aghion, Philippe & Bolton, Patrick, 1987. "Contracts as a Barrier to Entry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 388-401, June.
  23. Vives, Xavier, 1989. "Technological competition, uncertainty, and oligopoly," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 386-415, August.
  24. Farber, Stephen C, 1981. "Buyer Market Structure and R&D Effort: A Simultaneous Equations Model," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 63(3), pages 336-45, August.
  25. Byoung Heon Jun, 1989. "Non-cooperative Bargaining and Union Formation," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 56(1), pages 59-76.
  26. Jackson, Matthew O. & Wolinsky, Asher, 1996. "A Strategic Model of Social and Economic Networks," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 44-74, October.
  27. B. Douglas Bernheim & Michael D. Whinston, 1986. "Menu Auctions, Resource Allocation, and Economic Influence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 101(1), pages 1-31.
  28. Rachel E. Kranton & Deborah F. Minehart, 2000. "Networks versus Vertical Integration," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(3), pages 570-601, Autumn.
  29. Dobson, Paul W & Waterson, Michael, 1997. "Countervailing Power and Consumer Prices," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(441), pages 418-30, March.
  30. Ordover, Janusz A & Saloner, Garth & Salop, Steven C, 1990. "Equilibrium Vertical Foreclosure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 127-142, March.
  31. Kühn, Kai-Uwe & Vives, Xavier, 1995. "Excess Entry, Vertical Integration and Welfare," CEPR Discussion Papers 1293, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  32. 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.
  33. Bolton, Patrick & Scharfstein, David S, 1996. "Optimal Debt Structure and the Number of Creditors," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(1), pages 1-25, February.
  34. Curtis Eaton, B. & Schmitt, N., 1991. "Flexible Manufacturing and Market Structure," Papers 1991-02, Tasmania - Department of Economics.
  35. Marcel Boyer & Michel Moreaux, 1997. "Capacity Commitment versus Flexibility," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(1), pages 347-376, 06.
  36. Paul Dobson & Michael Waterson, 1999. "Retailer power: recent developments and policy implications," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 14(28), pages 133-164, 04.
  37. Horn, Henrik & Wolinsky, Asher, 1988. "Worker Substitutability and Patterns of Unionisation," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 98(391), pages 484-97, June.
  38. 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.
  39. Cotterill, Ronald W., 2000. "Dynamic Explanations of Industry Structure and Performance," Research Reports 25224, University of Connecticut, Food Marketing Policy Center.
  40. Cai, Hongbin, 2000. "Delay in Multilateral Bargaining under Complete Information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 260-276, August.
  41. repec:ccp:journl:v:1:y:2001:i:3:p:247-281 is not listed on IDEAS
  42. Leslie M. Marx & Greg Shaffer, 1999. "Predatory Accommodation: Below-Cost Pricing without Exclusion in Intermediate Goods Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(1), pages 22-43, Spring.
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:wzb:wzebiv:fsiv01-19. 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)

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.