Welfare properties of strategic R&D investments in Hotelling models

In linear-city models, if firms are allowed (not allowed) to locate outside the linear city, they engage in excessive (insufficient) R&D investments from the normative viewpoint. This implies that the feasible set of locations drastically affects their investments.     

A NONCOOPERATIVE SHIPPING COURNOT DUOPOLY WITH LINEAR‐QUADRATIC TRANSPORT COSTS AND CIRCULAR SPACE*

The mixed strategy equilibria in a location quantity duopoly model with circular markets are investigated. We find that a continuum of equilibria exists when the transport cost function is linear. However, if costs are strictly concave or convex, most strategies fail to qualify as equilibria. For any integer n, there are nondegenerate mixed strategy equilibria in which each firm locates at n possible locations with equal probability. This result explains possible outcomes in which firms’ on‐path locations are not minimally or maximally differentiated.     

A public firm in a model of spatial duopoly with price discrimination

We visit the role of privatization in the location decision of firms in an industry where no firm can produce all varieties demanded. We demonstrate that the Nash equilibrium locations are socially optimal, in the presence of a publicly owned firm, notwithstanding the degree of privatization.     

Consumer poaching,brand switching,and price transparency

This paper addresses price transparency on the consumer side in markets with behavioral price discrimination which feature welfare reducing brand switching. When long-term contracts are not available, an increase in transparency intensifies competition, lowers prices and profits, reduces brand switching and benefits consumers and welfare. With long-term contracts, an increase in transparency reduces the use of long-term contracts, leading to more brand switching and a welfare loss. Otherwise, the results are the same as without long-term contracts.     

Product differentiation, process R&D, and the nature of market competition

We investigate the relationship between process and product R&D and compare the incentives for both types of R&D under different modes of market competition (Bertrand versus Cournot). It is shown that: (i) process R&D investments increase with the degree of product differentiation and firms invest more in product R&D when they can do process R&D than when they cannot; (ii) Bertrand firms have a stronger incentive for product R&D whereas Cournot firms invest more in process R&D; and (iii) cooperation in product R&D promotes both types of R&D relative to competition whereas cooperation in both types of R&D discourages R&D relative to cooperation in just product R&D.     

Unilateral effects of mergers with general linear demand

We derive the formula for the unilateral price effects of mergers of two products with linear demand in the general asymmetric situation. The formula uses the same information required to calculate upward pricing pressure in the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines.     

Bundled discounts: Strategic substitutes or complements?

Bundled discounts by pairs of otherwise independent firms play an increasingly important role as a strategic tool in several industries. Given that prices of firms competing for the same consumers are strategic complements, one would expect their discounts levels also to be strategic complements. However, in this paper we show that under some circumstances bundled discounts may be strategic substitutes. This occurs under vertically differentiated products where a low quality pair of producers may indeed prefer to lower its discount after an increase in the discount offered by a high quality pair of producers.     

THE DECISION TO HIRE MANAGERS IN MIXED MARKETS UNDER BERTRAND COMPETITION*

This paper analyses the decisions of firms as to whether or not to hire managers when there is a public firm competing with a private firm in the product market. It is shown that under Bertrand competition with heterogeneous goods both firms hire managers. This is in contrast with the result obtained under Cournot competition, where only the private firm hires a manager. Moreover, welfare is lower if both firms hire managers than if neither firm does. In contrast, under Cournot competition welfare is greater if both firms hire managers.     

WHO BENEFITS FROM PRICING REGULATIONS WHEN ECONOMIC SPACE MATTERS?

Reinterpreting Hwang‐Mai (AER, 1990) by both simplifying and generalizing their analysis in terms of two key demand parameters representing income and market size, we probe the welfare effects of spatial price discrimination to determine how robust the previous welfare findings in the literature are. Endogenous location matters when a monopolist chooses asymmetric location under different pricing schemes. If he/she remained at the same location, outcomes of fixed and endogenous location models must be analytically the same. Endogenous and different location changes outcomes radically. When non‐discriminatory pricing regulations benefit the poor, different transportation burdens mean that the rich become poor, even worse off than the ex‐poor, and the society becomes worse off accordingly.     

Location choice with delegation: Bertrand vs. Cournot competition

The conventional wisdom indicates that firms' optimal locations are sensitive to the modes of product-market competition, leading to a difficulty for firms to make concrete location decisions. This difficulty is especially crucial for the high entry-cost firms. The paper develops an uncovered-market model à la Economides (1984) to explore this sensitivity by taking into account a delegation game. It shows that firms' location configurations remain unchanged regardless of the modes of product-market competition as the owners offer the managers a contract with a relative-performance incentive scheme. Moreover, the paper shows that, by introducing a delegation game, the competition between managers under Bertrand competition is mitigated such that the managers have no incentive to choose price undercutting as they locate themselves far enough away from each other.     

WHY DO LARGE FIRMS TEND TO INTEGRATE VERTICALLY?

We provide a theoretical framework to discuss the relation between firm size and vertical structures. The framework is based on a Hotelling model with three downstream and three upstream firms. We show that vertical integration enhances the degree of product differentiation and show the strategic complementarity of product positioning. We also show that the downstream firm that has the largest market share is more likely to integrate vertically. Enhancing the degree of product differentiation is more beneficial for the large firm than for the rest of the downstream firms because the large firm supplies a large amount of product.     

COMPETITIVENESS AND STABILITY OF COLLUSIVE BEHAVIOR

We investigate the relationship between the degree of competition and the stability of collusive behaviour, by introducing the element of relative performance in the objective functions of the firms. We show that an increase in the degree of competition destabilizes the collusion. This relation differs starkly in the standard symmetric Cournot and Bertrand duopoly models, with the former being more unstable than the latter.     

AIRPORT PRIVATIZATION AND INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION

We provide a simple theoretical model to explain the mechanism whereby the privatization of international airports can improve welfare. The model consists of a downstream (airline) duopoly with two inputs (landings at two airports) and two types of consumers. The airline companies compete internationally. We show that the outcome in which both airports are privatized is always an equilibrium, whereas that in which no airport is privatized is an equilibrium only if the degree of product differentiation is large. We also discuss airport congestion problems within the model framework.