Export or merge? Proximity vs. concentration in product space

This paper proposes a proximity-concentration tradeoff in product space as a determinant of horizontal foreign direct investment (FDI). Firms that enter a foreign market by exporting are able to capture consumer surplus from introducing a differentiated product with characteristics that the incumbent cannot match. In relatively globalized product space, in contrast, consumers perceive an entrant’s difference to existing products as less pronounced, so a consumer’s virtual distance costs in product space are lower and a merger with an incumbent (horizontal FDI) offers pricing power that allows the entrant to extract consumer rent. Lower physical trade costs of shipping make Bertrand price competition fiercer in differentiated product space and can provide an additional incentive for a merger. A basic product space model with a linear Hotelling setup can therefore explain why FDI has become more frequent in recent periods in the presence of falling trade costs. Cross-border merger and acquisitions data support the model’s prediction that horizontal FDI grows relatively faster than exports in differentiated goods industries, compared to homogeneous-goods industries

Incentives and welfare effect of sharing firm-specific information

This paper studies the incentives and the welfare effect of sharing firm-specific information in asymmetric Cournot and Bertrand oligopoly with mixed substitute and complement goods. Revealing firm-specific cost information is the dominant strategy in Cournot oligopoly, while concealing is so in Bertrand oligopoly. Such information sharing always hurts consumers. It increases social welfare in quantity competition and reduces social welfare in price competition. The results of sharing firm-specific cost information in Cournot oligopoly also apply to sharing firm-specific demand information in Cournot and Bertrand competition. -- In diesem Beitrag werden Anreize und Wohlfahrtseffekte des Austauschs von unternehmensspezifischer Information in einem asymmetrischen Cournot- und Bertrand- Oligopol mit einer Mischung von substitutiven und komplementären Gütern untersucht. Das Aufdecken unternehmensspezifischer Kosteninformation ist die dominante Strategie im Cournot-Oligopol, während im Bertrand-Oligopol diese Information vorenthalten wird. Derartiger Informationsaustausch geht immer zu Lasten der Konsumenten. Er erhöht die soziale Wohlfahrt im Mengenwettbewerb und verringert die soziale Wohlfahrt im Preiswettbewerb. Das Ergebnis des Austauschs unternehmensspezifischer Kosteninformation im Cournot-Oligopol läßt sich auch auf den unternehmensspezifischen Austausch von Nachfrageinformation im Cournot- und Bertrand-Wettbewerb anwenden.

How effective is advertising in duopoly markets?

A simple Ising spin model which can describe the mechanism of advertising in a duopoly market is proposed. In contrast to other agent-based models, the influence does not flow inward from the surrounding neighbors to the center site, but spreads outward from the center to the neighbors. The model thus describes the spread of opinions among customers. It is shown via standard Monte Carlo simulations that very simple rules and inclusion of an external field -- an advertising campaign -- lead to phase transitions.Comment: 7 pages, 6 figures; v2: cosmetic change

Collusion with private and aggregate information

This paper considers three linear asymmetric oligopoly models with (i) a representative consumer, (ii) horizontal differentiation and (iii) vertical differentiation. We show that firms could maximize the joint-profit only based on private and aggregate information. They can choose the “correct“ colluding prices without knowing the demand or profit function. The collusive outcome is a natural focal point despite firms are asymmetric. Collusion can be incentive compatible even though individual actions (prices) are not observed. -- Der Beitrag untersucht drei linear asymmetrische Oligopol-Modelle mit (i) einem repräsentativen Verbraucher, (ii) horizontaler Differenzierung und (iii) vertikaler Differenzierung. Es wird gezeigt, daß Firmen in der Lage sind, den Gesamtprofit allein auf der Grundlage privater und gemeinschaftlicher Information zu maximieren. Sie können zur „richtigen“ Absprache des Preises gelangen, ohne die Nachfrage- oder Gewinn-Funktion zu kennen. Die Absprache stellt einen natürlichen Gleichgewichtspunkt dar, ungeachtet asymmetrischer Verhältnisse. Die Absprache kann anreizkompatibel sein, auch wenn individuelle Aktionen (Preise) nicht beobachtet werden.

Advertising, brand loyalty and pricing

This is the post-print version of the final paper published in Games and Economic Behavior. The published article is available from the link below. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. Copyright @ 2008 Elsevier B.V.I consider an oligopoly model where, prior to price competition, firms invest in persuasive advertising and induce brand loyalty in consumers who would otherwise buy the cheapest alternative on the market. This setting, in which persuasive advertising is introduced to homogeneous product markets, provides an alternative explanation for price dispersion phenomena. Despite ex ante symmetry, the equilibrium profile of advertising outlays is asymmetric. It follows that endogenously determined brand loyal consumer bases are not symmetric across firms. This raises a robustness question regarding Varian's “model of sales” where symmetry is exogenously assumed.IVI

Economics of collective refusals to supply

This paper examines situations where vertically integrated firms refuse to supply an input to an independent competitor in the downstream market. The treatment of such cases by competition or regulatory authorities is based on the assumption that such outcomes can only arise if there is collusion in the upstream markets. We argue that this is not always the case. In particular, we argue that proper antitrust or regulatory assessment of such cases requires analysis of the nature of competition, the shape and elasticity of the demand curve, the observability of upstream contracts, and even the number of potential downstream competitors

Competition for access; spectrum rights and downstream access in wireless telecommunications

We analyse downstream access and capacity choice in the market for wireless telecommunications, where spectrum rights are owned by vertically integrated duopolists and may be traded. In the market for wireless telecommunications, radio spectrum is an essential input. Prior to network construction, the incumbents may offer contracts for capacity to an entrant, granting service-based access on the network they will construct. Alternatively, when spectrum trading is allowed, they may sell part of their license, allowing the entrant to build its own network and enter as an infrastructure player. We find that in this Cournot setting, access is generally provided, as incumbents compete to appropriate the profits of serving a differentiated market through the entrant. Although selling spectrum rights instead of network capacity leads to a loss of economies of scale in infrastructure construction, infrastructure-based entry may dominate as a result of a strategic effect. By delegating capacity choice to the entrant, the access providing incumbent can commit to compete more aggressively, causing its rival incumbent to reduce capacity. A lower aggregate capacity will increase prices and thereby profits.

IMPERFECT COMPETITION AND STRATEGIC TRADE THEORY: WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED

International Relations/Trade,

Technology licensing in a differentiated oligopoly

We show the effects of product differentiation and competition on technology licensing by an outside innovator. Both the innovator and the society are better off under royalty licensing compared to auction (or fixed-fee) if the number of potential licensees is sufficiently large, irrespective of Cournot and Bertrand competition. We find that the relationship between product differentiation and the minimum number of potential licensees that is required to make royalty licensing profitable to the innovator is non-monotonic under Cournot competition, while it is positive under Bertrand competition. Hence, there are degrees of product differentiation for which neither the innovator nor the antitrust authority requires information about the type of product market competition while deciding on the licensing contract. It follows from our analysis that the innovator prefers auction plus royalty licensing (or fixed-fee plus royalty) over either royalty licensing or auction.Auction; Licensing; Royalty; Product Differentiation

Licensing and the Incentive for Innovation

Previous literature has mostly considered R&D and licensing activities separately. In this paper we examine the effect of licensing on R&D and social welfare. We show that the effect of licensing on the incentive for doing R&D is ambiguous and depends on the costs of doing R&D. We also show that the possibility of licensing can change the identity of the innovating firm. However, we find that social welfare is non- decreasing in presence of licensing.Licensing, R&D, Welfare