IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jemstr/v7y1998i2p307-326.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Profitability under an Open versus a Closed System

Author

Listed:
  • Michael Kende

Abstract

This paper explores the conditions under which a monopolist selling a system consisting of a main component and differentiated secondary components can increase profits by allowing competition in the aftermarket for the secondary components. Opening the system in this fashion can increase profits by giving consumers an added incentive to incur the setup cost of purchasing the main component. This paper extends the second‐sourcing literature by showing the explicit effects of various parameters of demand on the decision to open the system. The results show that an open system is likely to be more profitable than a closed one when demand for the system is more elastic, when secondary‐component variety is more valued, and when the share of the main component in the total system budget of the consumer is high.

Suggested Citation

  • Michael Kende, 1998. "Profitability under an Open versus a Closed System," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 7(2), pages 307-326, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jemstr:v:7:y:1998:i:2:p:307-326
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1430-9134.1998.00307.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1430-9134.1998.00307.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1430-9134.1998.00307.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. Michael A. Einhorn, 1992. "Mix and Match Compatibility with Vertical Product Dimensions," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 23(4), pages 535-547, Winter.
    2. Joseph Farrell & Nancy T. Gallini, 1988. "Second-Sourcing as a Commitment: Monopoly Incentives to Attract Competition," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 103(4), pages 673-694.
    3. Zhiqi Chen & Thomas W. Ross, 1993. "Refusals to Deal, Price Discrimination, and Independent Service Organizations," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 2(4), pages 593-614, December.
    4. Matutes, Carmen & Regibeau, Pierre, 1992. "Compatibility and Bundling of Complementary Goods in a Duopoly," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 37-54, March.
    5. Farrell, Joseph & Gallini, Nancy T., 1986. "Second-sourcing as a Commitment: Monopoly Incentives to Attract Competition," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt8zs1p5cc, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    6. Andrea Shepard, 1987. "Licensing to Enhance Demand for New Technologies," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(3), pages 360-368, Autumn.
    7. Farrell, Joseph & Gallini, Nancy T., 1987. "Second-sourcing as a Commitment: Monopoly Incentives to Attract Competition," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt4zr9b9dr, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    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. Rey, Patrick & Tirole, Jean, 2007. "A Primer on Foreclosure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 33, pages 2145-2220, Elsevier.
    2. Kevin Boudreau, 2010. "Open Platform Strategies and Innovation: Granting Access vs. Devolving Control," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 56(10), pages 1849-1872, October.
    3. Severin Borenstein & Jeffrey K. Mackie-Mason & Janet S. Netz, 2000. "Exercising Market Power in Proprietary Aftermarkets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(3), pages 157-188, June.
    4. Noriaki Matsushima & Susumu Ogawa, 2012. "Profit-Enhancing Know-How Disclosure: A Strategic View," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 80(5), pages 560-579, September.
    5. Dainis Zēgners & Tobias Kretschmer, 2017. "Competition with Aftermarket Power When Consumers Are Heterogeneous," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 96-122, February.
    6. Clements, Matthew T., 2004. "Direct and indirect network effects: are they equivalent?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 633-645, May.
    7. Miao, Chun-Hui, 2016. "Licensing a technology standard," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 33-61.
    8. Gauguier, Jean-Jacques, 2009. "L’industrialisation de l’Open Source," Economics Thesis from University Paris Dauphine, Paris Dauphine University, number 123456789/4388 edited by Toledano, Joëlle.
    9. Nalin Kulatilaka & Lihui Lin, 2006. "Impact of Licensing on Investment and Financing of Technology Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(12), pages 1824-1837, December.
    10. Becchetti, Leonardo & Paganetto, Luigi, 2001. "The determinants of suboptimal technological development in the system company-component producers relationship," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(9), pages 1407-1421, November.

    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. Matutes, Carmen & Regibeau, Pierre, 1996. "A selective review of the economics of standardization. Entry deterrence, technological progress and international competition," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 183-209, September.
    2. Rey, Patrick & Tirole, Jean, 2007. "A Primer on Foreclosure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 33, pages 2145-2220, Elsevier.
    3. Dainis Zēgners & Tobias Kretschmer, 2017. "Competition with Aftermarket Power When Consumers Are Heterogeneous," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(1), pages 96-122, February.
    4. Choi, Jay Pil, 2003. "Bundling new products with old to signal quality, with application to the sequencing of new products," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(8), pages 1179-1200, October.
    5. Matsushima, Noriaki & Mizuno, Tomomichi, 2012. "Profit-enhancing competitive pressure in vertically related industries," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 142-152.
    6. Economides, Nicholas, 1996. "Network externalities, complementarities, and invitations to enter," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 211-233, September.
    7. Gilad Sorek, 2014. "Price Controls For Medical Innovations In A Life Cycle Perspective," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(1), pages 108-116, January.
    8. Miao, Chun-Hui, 2022. "The pricing of ancillary goods when selling on a platform," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 83(C).
    9. de Bijl, P.W.J., 1995. "Aftermarkets : The monopoly case," Other publications TiSEM 584b127c-94e7-4dbd-b455-2, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Du, Julan & Lu, Yi & Tao, Zhigang, 2009. "Bi-sourcing in the global economy," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(2), pages 215-222, April.
    11. Emanuel Ornelas & John L. Turner, 2012. "Protection and International Sourcing," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(559), pages 26-63, March.
    12. Namhoon Kwon, 2007. "Entry Invitations in a Market with Network Effects," International Economic Journal, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(1), pages 49-59.
    13. Fabio Manenti & Ernesto Somma, 2008. "One-Way Compatibility, Two-Way Compatibility and Entry in Network Industries," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 301-322.
    14. Cabaleiro, Goretti, 2019. "Sources of appropriation capacity in licensing agreements," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 86, pages 48-61.
    15. Beccherle, Julien & Tirole, Jean, 2011. "Regional initiatives and the cost of delaying binding climate change agreements," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(11), pages 1339-1348.
    16. Erkal, Nisvan, 2007. "Buyer-supplier interaction, asset specificity, and product choice," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 988-1010, October.
    17. Sorek, Gilad, 2012. "Free licensing to boost aggregate odds for success," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 183-185.
    18. Nalin Kulatilaka & Lihui Lin, 2006. "Impact of Licensing on Investment and Financing of Technology Development," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 52(12), pages 1824-1837, December.
    19. Holmstrom, Bengt R. & Tirole, Jean, 1989. "The theory of the firm," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 2, pages 61-133, Elsevier.
    20. Bar-Isaac, Heski, 2005. "Imperfect competition and reputational commitment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 89(2), pages 167-173, November.

    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:jemstr:v:7:y:1998:i:2:p:307-326. 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-Blackwell Digital Licensing or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/research/journals/JEMS/ .

    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.