IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/doj/eagpap/200605.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Investment Incentives and Market Power: An Experimental Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Dean V. Williamson

    (Economic Analysis Group, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice)

  • Céline Jullien

    (Université de Grenoble)

  • Lynne Kiesling

    (International Foundation for Research in Experimental Economics (IFREE) and Department of Economics, Northwestern University)

  • Carine Staropoli

    (Université Panthéon-Sorbonne)

Abstract

We examine investment incentives and market power in an experimental market. We characterize market power as the strategic interdependence of subjects' investment decisions and output decisions. The market is designed so that investment and output decisions can be jointly characterized as strategies within a game. A Nash-Cournot equilibrium of the game provides a way of characterizing how investment incentives and market power interact. Subjects could invest in two different production technologies and could produce output to serve as many as two different demand conditions. The technologies were analogous to "baseload" capacity and "peaking" capacity in wholesale electricity markets. The Nash-Cournot benchmark constituted a good indicator of subjects' output decisions in that output cycled around the Cournot benchmark. Thus, on average, consumers extracted the surplus available to them in the equilibrium. While we do not observe Edgeworth Cycles in prices or outputs, we do see them in the producer surplus series. Producers dissipated some of the surplus they could have extracted in the equilibrium by overinvesting in peaking capacity and underinvesting in baseload capacity. Inefficient investment diminished total system efficiency, but producers' investments in total production capacity tracked the Nash-Cournot benchmark. In contrast, monopoly explanations such as collusion do not characterize the data.

Suggested Citation

  • Dean V. Williamson & Céline Jullien & Lynne Kiesling & Carine Staropoli, 2006. "Investment Incentives and Market Power: An Experimental Analysis," EAG Discussions Papers 200605, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
  • Handle: RePEc:doj:eagpap:200605
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/221877.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carl Davidson & Raymond Deneckere, 1986. "Long-Run Competition in Capacity, Short-Run Competition in Price, and the Cournot Model," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(3), pages 404-415, Autumn.
    2. Vital Anderhub & Werner Güth & Ulrich Kamecke & Hans-Theo Normann, 2003. "Capacity Choices and Price Competition in Experimental Markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 6(1), pages 27-52, June.
    3. Reynolds, Stanley S. & Wilson, Bart J., 2000. "Bertrand-Edgeworth Competition, Demand Uncertainty, and Asymmetric Outcomes," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 92(1), pages 122-141, May.
    4. Carl Blumstein & Lee Friedman & Richard Green, 2002. "The History of Electricity Restructuring in California," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 9-38, June.
    5. Rassenti, Stephen & Reynolds, Stanley S. & Smith, Vernon L. & Szidarovszky, Ferenc, 2000. "Adaptation and convergence of behavior in repeated experimental Cournot games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 117-146, February.
    6. Frank A. Wolak & Robert H. Patrick, 2001. "The Impact of Market Rules and Market Structure on the Price Determination Process in the England and Wales Electricity Market," NBER Working Papers 8248, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Roques Fabien A. & Newbery David M. & Nuttall William J., 2005. "Investment Incentives and Electricity Market Design: the British Experience," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-36, June.
    8. Severin Borenstein & James Bushnell, 1999. "An Empirical Analysis of the Potential for Market Power in California’s Electricity Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3), pages 285-323, September.
    9. Maskin, Eric & Tirole, Jean, 1988. "A Theory of Dynamic Oligopoly, II: Price Competition, Kinked Demand Curves, and Edgeworth Cycles," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(3), pages 571-599, May.
    10. Boccard, Nicolas & Wauthy, Xavier, 2000. "Bertrand competition and Cournot outcomes: further results," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 279-285, September.
    11. Plott, Charles R, 1994. "Market Architectures, Institutional Landscapes and Testbed Experiments," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 4(1), pages 3-10, January.
    12. Paul L. Joskow & Edward Kohn, 2002. "A Quantitative Analysis of Pricing Behavior in California's Wholesale Electricity Market During Summer 2000," The Energy Journal, International Association for Energy Economics, vol. 0(Number 4), pages 1-35.
    13. Muren, Astri, 2000. "Quantity precommitment in an experimental oligopoly market," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 147-157, February.
    14. repec:bpj:rneart:v:4:y:2005:i:2:p:93-128 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Green, Richard J & Newbery, David M, 1992. "Competition in the British Electricity Spot Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 100(5), pages 929-953, October.
    16. Noel, Michael, 2004. "Edgeworth Price Cycles: Evidence from the Toronto Retail Gasoline Market," University of California at San Diego, Economics Working Paper Series qt64j579g9, Department of Economics, UC San Diego.
    17. Bushnell, James & Wolfram, Catherine, 2008. "Electricity Markets," Staff General Research Papers Archive 31547, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    18. Klemperer, Paul D & Meyer, Margaret A, 1989. "Supply Function Equilibria in Oligopoly under Uncertainty," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 57(6), pages 1243-1277, November.
    19. Stephen J. Rassenti & Bart J. Wilson, 2004. "How Applicable is the Dominant Firm Model of Price Leadership?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 7(3), pages 271-288, October.
    20. David M. Kreps & Jose A. Scheinkman, 1983. "Quantity Precommitment and Bertrand Competition Yield Cournot Outcomes," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(2), pages 326-337, Autumn.
    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. Lynne Kiesling & Bart Wilson, 2007. "An experimental analysis of the effects of automated mitigation procedures on investment and prices in wholesale electricity markets," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 313-334, June.
    2. Bastian Henze & Charles Noussair & Bert Willems, 2012. "Regulation of network infrastructure investments: an experimental evaluation," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 42(1), pages 1-38, August.

    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. Jason J. Lepore & Aric P. Shafran, 2013. "Consumer Rationing and Cournot Outcomes: Experimental Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(3), pages 727-746, January.
    2. Newbery, David M. & Greve, Thomas, 2017. "The strategic robustness of oligopoly electricity market models," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 124-132.
    3. Fabra, Natalia & Toro, Juan, 2005. "Price wars and collusion in the Spanish electricity market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(3-4), pages 155-181, April.
    4. Severin Borenstein & James. Bushnell & Steven Stoft, 2000. "The Competitive Effects of Transmission Capacity in A Deregulated Electricity Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(2), pages 294-325, Summer.
    5. Jan Potters & Sigrid Suetens, 2013. "Oligopoly Experiments In The Current Millennium," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 439-460, July.
    6. David Goodwin & Stuart Mestelman, 2002. "Advance Production Duopolies and Posted Prices or Market-Clearing Prices," Department of Economics Working Papers 2002-07, McMaster University.
    7. Paul Twomey & Richard Green & Karsten Neuhoff & David Newbery, 2005. "A Review of the Monitoring of Market Power: The Possible Roles of TSOs in Monitoring for Market Power Issues in Congested Transmission Systems," Working Papers 0502, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Center for Energy and Environmental Policy Research.
    8. Goodwin, David & Mestelman, Stuart, 2010. "A note comparing the capacity setting performance of the Kreps-Scheinkman duopoly model with the Cournot duopoly model in a laboratory setting," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 522-525, September.
    9. Jacobs, Martin, 2016. "Number of firms, rationing, matching, and knowledge: A comprehensive study of variations in experimental Kreps-Scheinkman markets," Economics Working Papers 2016-02, Christian-Albrechts-University of Kiel, Department of Economics.
    10. de Frutos, María-Ángeles & Fabra, Natalia, 2011. "Endogenous capacities and price competition: The role of demand uncertainty," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 399-411, July.
    11. Matthias Janssen & Magnus Wobben, "undated". "Electricity Pricing and Market Power - Evidence from Germany," Working Papers 200121, Institute of Spatial and Housing Economics, Munster Universitary.
    12. Crawford, Gregory S. & Crespo, Joseph & Tauchen, Helen, 2007. "Bidding asymmetries in multi-unit auctions: Implications of bid function equilibria in the British spot market for electricity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(6), pages 1233-1268, December.
    13. Le Coq, Chloé & Sturluson, Jon Thor, 2012. "Does opponents’ experience matter? Experimental evidence from a quantity precommitment game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 265-277.
    14. Vettas, Nikolaos & Biglaiser, Gary, 2004. "Dynamic Price Competition with Capacity Constraints and Strategic Buyers," CEPR Discussion Papers 4315, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Dressler, Luisa, 2016. "Support schemes for renewable electricity in the European Union: Producer strategies and competition," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 186-196.
    16. Tasnádi, Attila & Bakó, Barna, 2014. "A Kreps-Scheinkman-állítás érvényessége lineáris keresletű vegyes duopóliumok esetén [The Kreps and Scheinkman result remains valid for mixed duopolies with linear demand]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(5), pages 533-543.
    17. Garcia-Diaz, Anton & Marin, Pedro L., 2003. "Strategic bidding in electricity pools with short-lived bids: an application to the Spanish market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 201-222, February.
    18. Janssen, Matthias & Wobben, Magnus, 2008. "Electricity pricing and market power: Evidence from Germany," CAWM Discussion Papers 9, University of Münster, Münster Center for Economic Policy (MEP).
    19. Arie ten Cate & Mark Lijesen, 2004. "The Elmar model: output and capacity in imperfectly competitive electricity markets," CPB Memorandum 94.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    20. Barna Bakó & Attila Tasnádi, 2017. "The Kreps-Scheinkman Game in Mixed Duopolies," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 173(4), pages 753-768, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    capacity investment; Cournot; supply function equilibrium; Edgeworth Cycles; market power; electricity markets; investment incentives;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    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:doj:eagpap:200605. 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: Tung Vu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/atrgvus.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.