IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecorec/v55y1979i4p368-370.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Chamberlin and Stackelberg Duopoly Relation

Author

Listed:
  • JOHN P. FORMBY
  • W. JAMES SMITH

Abstract

The paper investigates and identifies an important relationship between the Chamberlin and Stackelberg duopoly models. Under conditions of symmetry, linear demand and constant costs, the two iso‐profit curves identifying the Stackelberg leadership points are shown to be tangent at the Chamberlin point. Under these conditions profit‐maximising duopolists are indifferent to being Stackelberg output leaders and coalescing in an equal‐shares‐joint‐monopoly solution. This result is shown to be sensitive to the constant cost and linear assumptions. Under increasing linear marginal costs, the joint monopoly solution is preferred by both sellers to a leader‐follower solution.

Suggested Citation

  • John P. Formby & W. James Smith, 1979. "The Chamberlin and Stackelberg Duopoly Relation," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 55(4), pages 368-370, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecorec:v:55:y:1979:i:4:p:368-370
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-4932.1979.tb02242.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4932.1979.tb02242.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1475-4932.1979.tb02242.x?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. Formby, John P, 1973. "On Revenue Maximizing Duopoly," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(3), pages 272-292, July.
    2. George J. Stigler, 1940. "Notes on the Theory of Duopoly," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 48(4), pages 521-521.
    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. Laurent Linnemer, 2022. "Doubling Back on Double Marginalization," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 61(1), pages 1-19, August.
    2. Thomas H. McInish & Robert A. Wood, 1996. "Competition, Fragmentation, and Market Quality," NBER Chapters, in: The Industrial Organization and Regulation of the Securities Industry, pages 63-92, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Federico Etro, 2014. "The Theory Of Endogenous Market Structures," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(5), pages 804-830, December.
    4. Lawrence J. White & Jasper Yang, 2020. "What Has Been Happening To Aggregate Concentration In The U.S. Economy In The Twenty‐First Century?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 38(3), pages 483-495, July.
    5. Young, David P. T., 1997. "Dominant firms, price leadership and the measurement of monopoly welfare losses," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 15(5), pages 533-533, August.
    6. Zimmerman, Paul R. & Carlson, Julie A., 2010. "Critical import supply elasticities and the ‘imports-as-market-discipline’ hypothesis," MPRA Paper 27848, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Ludovic A. Julien & Olivier Musy, 2015. "A Review of Heinrich von Stackelberg's Book: ‘Market Structure and Equilibrium’," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(1), pages 52-60, March.
    8. Kaplow, Louis, 2015. "Market definition, market power," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 148-161.
    9. Lawrence J. White, 2013. "Monopoly and Dominant Firms: Antitrust Economics and Policy Approaches," Working Papers 13-13, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    10. Henrik Egbert & Teodor Sedlarski & Aleksandar B. Todorov, 2021. "Foundations of contemporary economics: Heinrich von Stackelberg on market structure," Economic Thought journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 5, pages 107-124.
    11. D. P. T. Young, 2000. "Firms' Market Power, Endogenous Preferences and the Focus of Competition Policy," Review of Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 73-87.
    12. Colucci, Domenico & Doni, Nicola & Ricchiuti, Giorgio & Valori, Vincenzo, 2022. "Market dynamics with a state-owned dominant firm and a competitive fringe," Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    13. Siegfried, John J. & Latta, Christopher, 1998. "Competition in the Retail College Textbook Market," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 105-115, February.
    14. Louis Kaplow, 2011. "Market Definition and the Merger Guidelines," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 39(1), pages 107-125, August.
    15. Zimmerman, Paul R. & Carlson, Julie A., 2012. "Critical import supply elasticities and the ‘imports-as-market-discipline’ hypothesis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 345-354.
    16. Aitor Ciarreta & Javier García†Enríquez, 2018. "Profitable Strategic Delegation With Conjectural Variations," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(2), pages 185-203, April.
    17. Hellmann, Thomas & Thiele, Veikko, 2022. "May the force be with you: Investor power and company valuations," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 72(C).
    18. Louis Kaplow, 2015. "Market Definition, Market Power," NBER Working Papers 21167, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    19. Holloway, Garth J., 1995. "Conjectural Variations With Fewer Apologies," Working Papers 225880, University of California, Davis, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
    20. Luca Lambertini & Manuela Mosca, 2014. "The Bertrand Paradox, the Useless Auctioneer and the Launhardt Model," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(3-4), pages 170-183, December.

    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:ecorec:v:55:y:1979:i:4:p:368-370. 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/esausea.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.