Innovation and market concentration with asymmetric firms

This paper considers a theoretical model of n asymmetric firms that reduce their initial unit costs by spending on R&D activities. In accordance with Schumpeterian hypotheses we obtain that more efficient (bigger) firms spend more in R&D and this leads to a more concentrated market structure. We also find a positive relationship between innovation and market concentration. This calls for a corrective tax on R&D activities to curtail strategic incentives to over-invest in R&D trying to achieve a higher market share. Klassifikation: L11, L52, O31 . February, 2004

A note on cartel stability and endogenous sequencing with tacit collusion.

We use the concept of cartel stability defined by d'Aspremont et al. (1983) to obtain that the sequence of play between the cartel and the fringe affects cartel stability in a quantity-competition setting where firms tacitly collude. We also prove that an endogenous sequence of play between a cartel and a fringe depends on the discount factor. If the discount factor is large enough, the cartel and the fringe simultaneously choose quantities since the stable cartel may contain more firms under simultaneous play than under cartel leadership. This is due to the fact that under simultaneous play cartel firms have incentives to participate in the cartel because otherwise no collusion is possible.Collusion; Cartel stability; Stackelberg leadership

Cartel Sustainability and Cartel Stability

The paper studies how does the size of a cartel affect the possibility that its members can sustain a collusive agreement. I obtain that collusion is easier to sustain the larger the cartel is. Then, I explore the implications of this result on the incentives of firms to participate in a cartel. Firms will be more willing to participate because otherwise, they risk that collusion completely collapses, as remaining cartel members are unable to sustain collusion.Collusion, Partial cartels, Trigger strategies, Optimal punishment

ON WELFARE EFFECTS OF HORIZONTAL MERGERS WITH PRODUCT DIFFERENTIATION

We use a non-spatial (Chamberlinian) product differentiation model to analyze the welfare effects of horizontal mergers with quantity competition. We argue that(i) mergers can be welfare enhancing if the degree of product differentiation increases after the merger; and,(ii) privately profitable mergers can also increase welfare. Consequently, in this paper we demonstrate that the degree of product differentiation is a crucial factor to assess the welfare effects of a merger.Horizontal mergers; product differentiation; welfare.

Does cartel leadership facilitate collusion?

We discuss the implications of a Stackelberg sequence of play between a cartel and the fringe. We consider two different approaches to collusion: (i) one-stage static model and (ii) a multi-period oligopoly model. Our main result is that in the static model with quantity-setting firms a stable cartel only exist when cartel firms behave as a Stackelberg leader. It is also shown that in the supergame approach the cartel is always more easily sustained with the leadership than in the simultaneous-moves game. The opposite result is obtained in a price-setting supergame with differentiated products.Collusion; Leadership; Stability; Sustainability

Mergers in Asymmetric Stackelberg Markets

It is well known that the profitability of horizontal mergers with quantity competition is scarce. However, in an asymmetric Stackelberg market we obtain that some mergers are profitable. Our main result is that mergers among followers become profitable when the followers are inefficient enough. In this case, leaders reduce their output when followers merge and this reduction renders the merger profitable. This merger increases price and welfare is reduced.Mergers, Asymmetries, Stackelberg

On the Relationship between Market Concentration and Bank Risk Taking

We analyse risk-taking behaviour of banks in the context of spatial competition. Banks mobilise unsecured deposits by offering deposit rates, which they invest either in a prudent or in a gambling asset. Limited liability along with high return of a successful gamble induce moral hazard at the bank level. We show that when the market concentration is low, banks invest in the gambling asset. On the other hand, for sufficiently high levels of market concentration, all banks choose the prudent asset to invest in. We further show that a merger of two neighboring banks increases the likelihood of prudent behaviour. Finally, introduction of a deposit insurance scheme exacerbates banks’ moral hazard problem.Market concentration; Bank mergers; Risk-taking

On the Relationship between Market Power and Bank Risk Taking

We analyse risk-taking behaviour of banks in the context of spatial competition. Banks mobilise unsecured deposits by offering deposit rates, which they invest either in a prudent or a gambling asset. Limited liability along with high return of a successful gamble induce moral hazard at the bank level. We show that when the market power is low, banks invest in the gambling asset. On the other hand, for sufficiently high levels of market power, all banks choose the prudent asset to invest in. We further show that a merger of two neighboring banks increases the likelihood of prudent behaviour. Finally, introduction of a deposit insurance scheme exacerbates banks’ moral hazard problem.

ODRŽIVOST KOLUZIJE PRI „STACKED REVERSION“

We consider a multi-period oligopoly model to analyze cartel sustainability where a subset of collusive firms is exogenously given. We assume that in case of cheating only the cheater is expelled from the cartel and collusion continues without the cheater. We show that, in our model, when firms compete in quantities and the cartel is sufficiently small, a Stackelberg leader cartel can always be sustained if firms are patient enough. Furthermore, in this case collusion is more easily sustained than when firms play grim trigger strategies. The opposite result is obtained in a price-setting supergame with differentiated products.Razmatramo multiperiodni model oligopola kako bismo analizirali održivost kartela u kojem je podskup koluzivnih tvrtki dan egzogeno. Pretpostavljamo da u slučaju prevare samo varalica biva izbačen iz kartela te se koluzija nastavlja bez prevaranta. Na našem modelu pokazujemo da kad tvrtke konkuriraju u količinama a kartel je dovoljno malen, Stackelberg leader kartel može uvijek biti održan ako su tvrtke dovoljno strpljive. Nadalje, u ovom slučaju, koluzija se jednostavnije održava nego kad tvrtke igraju „grim trigger“ strategije. Obrnuti se rezultat dobiva u cjenovnom nadigravanju s diferenciranim proizvodima

ODRŽIVOST KOLUZIJE PRI „STACKED REVERSION“

We consider a multi-period oligopoly model to analyze cartel sustainability where a subset of collusive firms is exogenously given. We assume that in case of cheating only the cheater is expelled from the cartel and collusion continues without the cheater. We show that, in our model, when firms compete in quantities and the cartel is sufficiently small, a Stackelberg leader cartel can always be sustained if firms are patient enough. Furthermore, in this case collusion is more easily sustained than when firms play grim trigger strategies. The opposite result is obtained in a price-setting supergame with differentiated products.Razmatramo multiperiodni model oligopola kako bismo analizirali održivost kartela u kojem je podskup koluzivnih tvrtki dan egzogeno. Pretpostavljamo da u slučaju prevare samo varalica biva izbačen iz kartela te se koluzija nastavlja bez prevaranta. Na našem modelu pokazujemo da kad tvrtke konkuriraju u količinama a kartel je dovoljno malen, Stackelberg leader kartel može uvijek biti održan ako su tvrtke dovoljno strpljive. Nadalje, u ovom slučaju, koluzija se jednostavnije održava nego kad tvrtke igraju „grim trigger“ strategije. Obrnuti se rezultat dobiva u cjenovnom nadigravanju s diferenciranim proizvodima