IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/qjiage/155540.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competition in the gum arabic market: a game theoretic modelling approach

Author

Listed:
  • Rahim, Afaf H.
  • Ierland, Ekko C. van
  • Weikard, Hans-Peter

Abstract

Gum arabic is mainly produced from two Acacias that are found in the gum belt of Sub-Saharan Africa. These are Acacia senegal that produces high quality gum and Acacia seyal that produces low quality gum. In recent years the gum market structure has changed and Sudan lost its near monopoly position as Chad and Nigeria became important gum suppliers. In order to understand the competition between Sudan, Chad and Nigeria in the export of high and low quality gum arabic we develop a von Stackelberg model with interdependent markets. Whereas Sudan (the leader) has an absolute cost advantage in the export of high quality gum, Chad and Nigeria (the followers) have a cost advantage in the export of low quality gum. We determine the market equilibrium outcomes and study the impact of development assistance scenarios to promote either the high or low quality gum. Our results suggest that the leader is better off promoting the quality for which it has cost advantage, i.e. the high quality gum. This also leads to a lower reduction in the competitors’ profit than promoting low quality gum. Similarly, when followers promote the quality for which they have cost advantage, i.e. the low quality gum, this results in a lower reduction in the leader's profit than when they promote high quality gum. The best strategy of the followers is, however, sensitive with respect to the elasticities of demand.

Suggested Citation

  • Rahim, Afaf H. & Ierland, Ekko C. van & Weikard, Hans-Peter, 2010. "Competition in the gum arabic market: a game theoretic modelling approach," Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, Humboldt-Universitaat zu Berlin, vol. 49(1), pages 1-24.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:qjiage:155540
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.155540
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/155540/files/1_Rahim.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.155540?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anderson, Simon P. & Engers, Maxim, 1992. "Stackelberg versus Cournot oligopoly equilibrium," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 127-135, March.
    2. Shapiro, Carl, 1989. "Theories of oligopoly behavior," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 329-414, Elsevier.
    3. Church, Jeffrey & Ware, Roger, 1996. "Delegation, market share and the limit price in sequential entry models," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 575-609, July.
    4. Richard S. Higgins, 1996. "An economic theory of leader choice in Stackelberg models," Journal of Economic Studies, Emerald Group Publishing, vol. 23(5/6), pages 79-95, October.
    5. Pal, Debashis & Sarkar, Jyotirmoy, 2001. "A Stackelberg Oligopoly with Nonidentical Firms," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 127-134, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Daw Ma, 2014. "Can Emerging Market Protectionism Be Beneficial?," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 4(9), pages 1175-1189, September.
    2. Ludovic Julien & Olivier Musy & Aurélien Saïdi, 2011. "Do Followers Really Matter in Stackelberg Competition?," Lecturas de Economía, Universidad de Antioquia, Departamento de Economía, issue 75, pages 11-27.
    3. Bersani, Alberto M. & Falbo, Paolo & Mastroeni, Loretta, 2022. "Is the ETS an effective environmental policy? Undesired interaction between energy-mix, fuel-switch and electricity prices," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    4. Ludovic Julien & Olivier Musy & Aurélien Saïdi, 2012. "On hierarchical competition in oligopoly," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 217-237, November.
    5. Toomas Hinnosaar, 2021. "Stackelberg Independence," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 214-238, March.
    6. Kotchen, Matthew J. & Salant, Stephen W., 2011. "A free lunch in the commons," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 245-253, May.
    7. Kaplow, Louis & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Antitrust," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 1073-1225, Elsevier.
    8. Charles A.E. Goodhart & Dimitrios P. Tsomocos & Xuan Wang, 2023. "Support for small businesses amid COVID‐19," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 90(358), pages 612-652, April.
    9. Pierre-Pascal Gendron, 1996. "Corporation Tax Asymmetries: An Oligopolistic Supergame Analysis," Working Papers ecpap-96-04, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    10. Beviá, Carmen & Corchón, Luis C., 2013. "Endogenous strength in conflicts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 297-306.
    11. Luís Cabral, 2018. "We’re Number 1: Price Wars for Market Share Leadership," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2013-2030, May.
    12. Helmuts Azacis & David R Collie, 2018. "Taxation and the sustainability of collusion: ad valorem versus specific taxes," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 173-188, October.
    13. Kovác, Eugen & Vinogradov, Viatcheslav & Zigic, Kresimir, 2010. "Technological leadership and persistence of monopoly under endogenous entry: Static versus dynamic analysis," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1421-1441, August.
    14. Jovanovic, Dragan, 2013. "Mergers, managerial incentives, and efficiencies," DICE Discussion Papers 88, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    15. Gupta, Bishnupriya, 1997. "Collusion in the Indian Tea Industry in the Great Depression: An Analysis of Panel Data," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 155-173, April.
    16. Claude d'Aspremont & Rodolphe Dos Santos Ferreira & Louis-André Gérard-Varet, 2007. "Competition For Market Share Or For Market Size: Oligopolistic Equilibria With Varying Competitive Toughness," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 48(3), pages 761-784, August.
    17. Iossa, Elisabetta & Loertscher, Simon & Marx, Leslie & Rey, Patrick, 2020. "Collusive Market Allocations," CEPR Discussion Papers 14563, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Carl Shapiro, 2001. "Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting," NBER Chapters, in: Innovation Policy and the Economy, Volume 1, pages 119-150, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Kovenock, Dan & Phillips, Gordon M, 1997. "Capital Structure and Product Market Behavior: An Examination of Plant Exit and Investment Decisions," The Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 10(3), pages 767-803.
    20. Zhao, Kai & Wu, Wanshu, 2015. "Ambiguity Between Pirate Incentive And Collective Desirability Within Semi-Delegation Pattern," Hitotsubashi Journal of Economics, Hitotsubashi University, vol. 56(2), pages 259-279, December.

    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:ags:qjiage:155540. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iahubde.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.