IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ajarec/v51y2007i4p445-457.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bargaining rationale for cooperative generic advertising

Author

Listed:
  • John M. Crespi
  • Jennifer S. James

Abstract

The beggar-thy-neighbour aspect of commodity advertising means that benefits to one commodity from advertising come at the expense of other commodities. The effect can be mitigated by cooperation among groups as shown by Alston, Freebairn and James (AFJ). A drawback to AFJ's analysis is that some cooperative outcomes require side payments from one producer group to another. This paper offers a bargaining solution as an alternative to cooperation in the case where cooperative side payments would be needed. We show that while bargaining without side payments is not as effective as cooperation at reducing beggar-thy-neighbour effects, it is a welfare improving alternative to non-cooperation and is likely more practical in many situations. Copyright 2007 The Authors Journal compilation 2007 Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society Inc .

Suggested Citation

  • John M. Crespi & Jennifer S. James, 2007. "Bargaining rationale for cooperative generic advertising," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 51(4), pages 445-457, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ajarec:v:51:y:2007:i:4:p:445-457
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/j.1467-8489.2007.00385.x
    File Function: link to full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1982. "Perfect Equilibrium in a Bargaining Model," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 50(1), pages 97-109, January.
    2. Schmalensee, Richard, 1987. "Competitive advantage and collusive optima," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 351-367.
    3. Nash, John, 1953. "Two-Person Cooperative Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 21(1), pages 128-140, April.
    4. Ken Binmore & Ariel Rubinstein & Asher Wolinsky, 1986. "The Nash Bargaining Solution in Economic Modelling," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(2), pages 176-188, Summer.
    5. John Crespi & Stéphan Marette, 2002. "Generic Advertising and Product Differentiation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(3), pages 691-701.
    6. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    7. Nicholas E. Piggott, 2000. "The Incidence of the Costs and Benefits of Generic Advertising," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 665-671.
    8. John M. Crespi, 2003. "The Generic Advertising Controversy: How Did We Get Here and Where Are We Going?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 25(2), pages 294-315.
    9. Rubinstein, Ariel, 1985. "A Bargaining Model with Incomplete Information about Time Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 53(5), pages 1151-1172, September.
    10. Julian M. Alston & John W. Freebairn & Jennifer S. James, 2001. "Beggar-Thy-Neighbor Advertising: Theory and Application to Generic Commodity Promotion Programs," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 83(4), pages 888-902.
    11. Mingxia Zhang & Richard J. Sexton, 2002. "Optimal Commodity Promotion when Downstream Markets are Imperfectly Competitive," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 84(2), pages 352-365.
    12. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    13. Chanjin Chung & Harry M. Kaiser, 2000. "Distribution of Generic Advertising Benefits Across Participating Firms," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 82(3), pages 659-664.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Yu, Lili & He, Xiuli & Zhang, Juan & Xu, Chuanyong, 2021. "Horizontal cooperative advertising with advertising threshold effects," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 98(C).
    2. Metin Cakir & Joseph V. Balagtas, 2010. "Econometric evidence of cross-market effects of generic dairy advertising," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 83-99.
    3. Aust, Gerhard & Buscher, Udo, 2014. "Cooperative advertising models in supply chain management: A review," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 234(1), pages 1-14.
    4. Lee L. Schulz & John M. Crespi, 2012. "Presence of Check‐Off Programs and Industry Concentration in the Food Manufacturing Sector," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(2), pages 148-156, March.

    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. John M. Crespi & Stéphan Marette, 2003. "Are uniform assessments for generic advertising optimal if products are differentiated?," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(3), pages 367-377.
    2. Binmore, Ken & Osborne, Martin J. & Rubinstein, Ariel, 1992. "Noncooperative models of bargaining," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 7, pages 179-225, Elsevier.
    3. Kjell Hausken, 1997. "Game-theoretic and Behavioral Negotiation Theory," Group Decision and Negotiation, Springer, vol. 6(6), pages 511-528, December.
    4. Harstad, Bård, 2023. "Pledge-and-review bargaining," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    5. Harstad, Bård, 2021. "A Theory of Pledge-and-Review Bargaining," Memorandum 5/2022, Oslo University, Department of Economics, revised 21 Jun 2021.
    6. Guth, Werner & Ritzberger, Klaus & van Damme, Eric, 2004. "On the Nash bargaining solution with noise," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 697-713, June.
    7. António Brandão & Joana Pinho & Hélder Vasconcelos, 2014. "Asymmetric Collusion with Growing Demand," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 429-472, December.
    8. Joalland, Olivier & Pereau, Jean-Christophe & Rambonilaza, Tina, 2019. "Bargaining local compensation payments for the installation of new power transmission lines," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 75-85.
    9. Takeuchi, Ai & Veszteg, Róbert F. & Kamijo, Yoshio & Funaki, Yukihiko, 2022. "Bargaining over a jointly produced pie: The effect of the production function on bargaining outcomes," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 169-198.
    10. Matthew Backus & Thomas Blakee & Brad Larsen & Steven Tadelis, 2020. "Sequential Bargaining in the Field: Evidence from Millions of Online Bargaining Interactions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 135(3), pages 1319-1361.
    11. Okada, Akira, 2010. "The Nash bargaining solution in general n-person cooperative games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 145(6), pages 2356-2379, November.
    12. Chander, Parkash & Wooders, Myrna, 2020. "Subgame-perfect cooperation in an extensive game," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    13. Haruo Imai & Hannu Salonen, 2012. "A characterization of a limit solution for finite horizon bargaining problems," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 41(3), pages 603-622, August.
    14. Suchan Chae & Seho Kim, 2019. "The effects of third-party transfers in sequential anchored bargaining," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 48(1), pages 143-155, March.
    15. Hanato, Shunsuke, 2019. "Simultaneous-offers bargaining with a mediator," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 361-379.
    16. Johannes Spinnewijn & Frans Spinnewyn, 2015. "Revising claims and resisting ultimatums in bargaining problems," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 19(2), pages 91-116, June.
    17. Joan Esteban & József Sákovics, 2002. "Endogenous bargaining power," Economics Working Papers 644, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    18. Dagan, Nir & Serrano, Roberto, 1998. "Invariance and randomness in the Nash program for coalitional games," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(1), pages 43-49, January.
    19. Roberto Serrano, 2007. "Bargaining," Working Papers 2007-06, Instituto Madrileño de Estudios Avanzados (IMDEA) Ciencias Sociales.
    20. Adriana Breccia, 2006. "Sequential Bargaining in a Stochastic Environment," Discussion Papers 06/07, Department of Economics, University of York.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:bla:ajarec:v:51:y:2007:i:4:p:445-457. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaresea.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.