Price competition and quality differentiation with multiproduct firms

This paper examines a two-stage competition where firms simultaneously choose the number of products and qualities in the first stage, and then compete in prices. It is shown that a monopolist must sell a single product. In addition, in any equilibrium of multiproduct duopoly, there are segmented patterns of quality differentiation. Entangled configurations never emerge because each firm has an incentive to reduce the number of products facing direct competition with its rival. This result contrasts sharply with the equilibrium of non-segmented quality differentiation when firms compete in quantities. Furthermore, we find that the high-quality firm never offers more products than the low-quality firm, and quality differentiation between firms is greater than that within a firm.     

Price distributions and competition

This paper utilizes an equilibrium search model to investigate market structure and price dispersion. In a market with one large firm and a competitive fringe, the large firm offers the highest price. Fringe firms offer a distribution of lower prices.     

Price floors and competition

A potential source of instability of many economic models is that agents have little incentive to stick with the equilibrium. We show experimentally that this can matter with price competition. The control variable is a price floor, which increases the cost of deviating from equilibrium. According to traditional theory, a higher floor allows competitors to obtain higher profits. Behaviorally, the opposite result obtains with two (but not with four) competitors. An error model, which builds on Luce (Individual Choice Behavior, 1959), can adequately describe supra-Nash pricing with a low-floor, but then fails to capture the overall pro-competitive effect of a high-floor seen for duopolies.     

Price competition between subsidized organizations

Many firms and organizations compete for customers while at the same time receiving substantial funding from outside sources, such as government subsidies. In this paper, we study the effects of two commonly observed subsidy systems on the strategic behavior of competing firms. We compare a per unit subsidy to a subsidy allocated according to the firms’ market shares. We show that, holding the total subsidy budget constant, the per unit subsidy results in lower prices, higher output, lower profits and higher overall welfare as compared to the market-share based alternative. However, we also find that a market-share based subsidy makes collusive behavior between firms much harder. Our results suggest a potential trade-off between short-run and long-run objectives: subsidy systems designed to widen participation may favor collusive behavior. The welfare implications of this trade-off are discussed. Our findings have important policy implications for the design of subsidy systems.     

Price normalization under imperfect competition

In general equilibrium models of imperfect competition the equilibria depend on how prices are normalized. This note shows that a price normalization preserves convexity properties if and only if prices are measured in terms of a fixed commodity bundle. I am grateful to an anonymous referee for helpful comments, inspiring a simplification in the proof of the main result, and the argument in the Remark.     

Price and quantity competition under free entry

This paper complements that of Cellini et al. (Cellini, R., Lambertini, L., Ottaviano, G. I. P., 2004. Welfare in a differentiated oligopoly with free entry: A cautionary note. Research in Economics, 58:125–33.), which shows that Cournot competition may generate higher welfare compared to Bertrand competition in an economy with free entry. Unlike them, we provide a more general proof for this result and show that Cournot competition generates higher welfare compared to Bertrand competition when the products are sufficiently differentiated. If the products are close substitutes, welfare is higher under Bertrand competition. We show that these qualitative results hold whether or not number of varieties increases market size. We also show when the active firms earn higher profits under Bertrand competition compared to Cournot competition.     

Price discrimination and quality improvement

This paper models quality improvements when multiple quality levels can sell, owing to differences in consumers' valuations of quality improvements. Firms can collude to price discriminate, so that consumers with high valuations pay a price premium, while others receive a quality level below the highest available. Imposing minimum quality standards or price ceilings can ensure that only the highest quality level of each product is sold. Such intervention reduces the quality‐adjusted price paid by consumers but also reduces the incentives for firms to innovate. When enough consumers have high valuations, such intervention must be welfare reducing, owing to reduced innovation. JEL Classification: O31, L16 Discrimination par les prix et amélioration de la qualité. Ce mémoire présente un modèle d'amélioration de la qualité quand on peut vendre des produits à divers niveaux de qualitéà cause des différences dans les évaluations d'amélioration de qualité par les consommateurs. Les entreprises peuvent entrer en collusion pour faire de la discrimination par les prix de manière à ce que les consommateurs qui apprécient davantage la qualité paient une prime pendant que les autres consommateurs reçoivent une qualité au‐dessous de ce qui est la meilleure qualité disponible. Si on impose des normes de qualité minimale ou des plafonds aux prix, on peut s'assurer que seuls les produits de la plus haute qualité seront vendus. De telles interventions réduisent le niveau de prix ajusté pour la qualité payé par les consommateurs, mais réduisent aussi les incitations des entreprises à innover. Quand un nombre suffisant de consommateurs apprécient beaucoup la qualité, de telles interventions peuvent réduire le niveau de bien‐être à cause des innovations moins importantes.     

Price competition and innovation in markets with brand loyalty

Intuition suggests that in markets with consumer lock-in (‘brand loyalty’), firms with a large customer base earn higher profits. We show for a homogeneous goods duopoly that the intuition can be misleading, as the intensity of price competition depends on the initial market split. We derive mixed-strategy equilibria, and show that competition is often most intense when the market is split evenly. As a result, firms coordinate on an asymmetric split when consumers are not yet attached to firms. We also allow for asymmetric costs, and analyze when firms with a larger customer base are more eager to innovate.     

Strategic delegation under quality competition

This paper examines strategic manipulations of incentive contracts in a model where firms compete in quality as well as in price. Compensation schemes for managers are based on a linear combination of profits and sales. For a given level of quality, a firm desires to reduce the manager's compensation when product sales increase; this serves as the firm's commitment to raise prices. Nevertheless, in general, a manager has a stronger incentive to produce goods of higher quality if he is compensated according to sales. Therefore, a compensation scheme that penalizes a manager when sales increase may result in products that are inferior to those of its rival. We show that, depending on the nature of quality, a positive weight on sales may be desirable when firms compete in quality and price. Welfare implications are also explored.     

Price cap regulation and water quality

Journal of Regulatory Economics - A number of studies suggest that price cap regulation may reduce the quality of the regulated good. This paper analyzes the impact on drinking water quality of a...     

Price competition in the market for business telecommunications services

We estimate a two-step control-function model that relates incumbent prices for small-business telecommunications services to the number of facilities-based entrants, cost, demand, regulatory conditions, and a correction for endogenous market structure. Results show that the price effects from entry are understated in ordinary least squares regressions. When controlling for endogeneity, prices are negatively related to the number of entrants, indicating that markets without a competitive presence could exhibit market power. These findings should prove helpful to the Federal Communications Commission and other State regulators determining the conditions under which price and other forms of regulation may be relaxed.     

Price collusion with free entry: the parasitic competition

The market equilibrium that is generated in the presence of both price collusion and free entry is analyzed taking under consideration the case of a homogeneous product and the case of differentiated products. The outcomes of this market regime are compared with those of other regimes, including competition (or monopolistic competition), monopoly, fixed price with collusive entry limitation. Some welfare implications of the market regime of price collusion with free entry are examined, with respect to the maximum social welfare allocation and the allocations of other market regimes, so to highlight the inefficiency of price collusion with free entry. The number of producers results to be the maximum number of firms that can produce without incurring into losses. Therefore, social distress is caused by a displacement from the price collusion equilibrium with free entry. Its defence can thus be considered in reference to the desirability of social goals that are in contradiction with economic efficiency.     

Price cap regulation of a dominant firm facing competition

Price cap regulation is typically applied to natural monopolies operating with subadditive costs. Price caps are known to provide superior incentives for the regulated monopoly to pursue cost reduction and, in a multiservice/product context, undertake welfare enhancing price discrimination. It is well known that capping a Laspeyres index of the firm’s prices induces the monopoly to charge socially optimal “Ramsey” prices in the long run. This paper examines the suitability of the Laspeyres form of regulation when the regulated firm faces competition in the market for one of its services (outputs). We present the appropriately modified Ramsey pricing rule for the regulated dominant firm and demonstrate that capping a Laspeyres index of the dominant firm’s prices leads to prices that satisfy this pricing rule in the long run.     

Price competition between big and small supermarkets: evidence from Seoul

This article empirically investigates the level of competition between superstores and smaller retailers in the Korean retail industry where market entry and operational hours of the former are restricted in order to protect the latter. Applying spatial econometric methods to store-level price data from Seoul, we find that while spatial price correlations among same-size stores exist, product prices across different-size stores are spatially uncorrelated. This result implies that consumers may not view superstores’ and smaller retailers’ products as close substitutes, and thus their markets are likely to be segmented from each other.     

Price, unit value, and quality demanded

Given the paucity of quality price data, it is common to rely on “unit value” (average expenditure per unit) as a proxy for price, but this is an imperfect proxy if households respond to price increases by substituting to lower quality goods. This paper draws on survey data that contain both unit value and price to estimate the severity of quality substitution in Indonesia, finding that it is prevalent. The paper next calculates price elasticities that correct for quality substitution, evaluating and ultimately rejecting a commonly used method for calculating price elasticities using only unit value data. Finally, it demonstrates that quality substitution can result in biased price elasticities even when price is perfectly observed.     

Price competition when consumer behavior is characterized by conformity or vanity

It has long been recognized that the pleasure of consuming a good may be affected by the consumption choice of other consumers. In some cases, social pressures may lead to conformity; in some others, individuals may feel the need of exclusiveness under the form of vanity. Such externalities have proven to be important in several markets. However, the market implication of these externalities are still unclear. To investigate them, we propose to combine the consumption externality model and the spatial duopoly model. When conformity is present but not too strong, both firms remain in business but price competition is fiercer and results in lower prices. The market share of the large firm increases with the population size; as the population keeps rising, the large firm may serve the entire market and set a price that has the nature of a limit price. When conformity is strong enough, different equilibria may exist. In most of these equilibria, a single firm captures the whole market. At the other extreme, when vanity is at work, price competition is relaxed.     

Cartel sustainability with vertical product differentiation: Price versus quantity competition

In the context of a vertically differentiated duopoly, we analyse the influence of the degree of differentiation on cartel sustainability, under both price and quantity competition. We find that, under both Bertrand and Cournot competition, the effect of vertical product differentiation on sustainability of the collusive equilibrium is unclear. It is shown that, given a degree of differentiation, price collusion is more sustainable than quantity collusion.     

Licensing under vertical product differentiation: Price vs. quantity competition

This paper develops a duopoly model of vertical product differentiation where two domestic firms incur variable costs of quality development. These domestic firms can purchase a superior foreign technology through licensing. Outcomes between Bertrand and Cournot competition are compared. We find that licensing raises domestic welfare, and domestic welfare is higher in Bertrand than in Cournot competition regardless of whether or not domestic firms engage in licensing. Non-exclusive licensing is also found to benefit the domestic country more than exclusive licensing.     

Effect of credible quality investment with Bertrand and Cournot competition

We show how credible revelation and ability to commit to quality choice effect equilibrium qualities and welfare when product market is either Bertrand or Cournot competition. We show that results depend on the type of competition but not generally on the cost of quality function. We show that with Bertrand competition, the equilibrium qualities are lower with credible commitment. Competition is moderated and producer surplus is higher and consumer surplus lower. With Cournot competition, higher quality will be better but lower quality will be worse with credible commitment. Consumer surplus is always greater with credible commitment and if cost does not increase too quickly with quality, producer surplus will also increase. Thus credible commitment is a collusive device with Bertrand competition but it can improve social welfare with Cournot competition. Received: February 8, 2000; revised version: February 14, 2002 RID="*" ID="*" The idea of this paper originated in the weekly workshops of Mordecai Kurz at Stanford. I am forever in debted to Mordecai and fellow students – Luis Cabral, Peter DeMarzo, John Hillas, Michihiro Kandori, Steve Langois, Patrick McAllister, Steve Sharpe, Peter Streufert, Steve Turnbull and Gyu-Ho Wang – for their criticism and encouragement. I also benefited from comments from Yi-Heng Chen, Jin-Li Hu, Kala Krishna, Jinji Naoto, Thomas J. Prusa, and Shyh-Fang Ueng at various later stages of this work. Last but not least, I am grateful for the detailed comments of the referee.