IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolet/v121y2013i1p137-140.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Paying not to sell

Author

Listed:
  • Bacchiega, Emanuele
  • Bonroy, Olivier
  • Mabrouk, Rania

Abstract

In this paper we show that, in the presence of buyer and seller power, a monopolist can enter into a costly contractual relationship with a low-quality supplier with the sole intention of improving its bargaining position relative to a high-quality supplier, without ever selling the good produced by that firm.

Suggested Citation

  • Bacchiega, Emanuele & Bonroy, Olivier & Mabrouk, Rania, 2013. "Paying not to sell," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 121(1), pages 137-140.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolet:v:121:y:2013:i:1:p:137-140
    DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2013.07.018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165176513003510
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.07.018?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
    ---><---

    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. Avinash Dixit, 1979. "A Model of Duopoly Suggesting a Theory of Entry Barriers," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 20-32, Spring.
    2. Lambertini, Luca & Orsini, Raimondello, 2000. "Process and product innovation in a vertically differentiated monopoly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 68(3), pages 333-337, September.
    3. Bonanno, Giacomo & Haworth, Barry, 1998. "Intensity of competition and the choice between product and process innovation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 495-510, July.
    4. Avner Shaked & John Sutton, 1982. "Relaxing Price Competition Through Product Differentiation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 49(1), pages 3-13.
    5. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
    6. Bester, Helmut & Petrakis, Emmanuel, 1993. "The incentives for cost reduction in a differentiated industry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 519-534.
    7. Gabszewicz, Jean J. & Wauthy, Xavier Y., 2002. "Quality underprovision by a monopolist when quality is not costly," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 77(1), pages 65-72, September.
    8. Acharyya, Rajat, 1998. "Monopoly and product quality: Separating or pooling menu?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 187-194, November.
    9. Mills, David E, 1995. "Why Retailers Sell Private Labels," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 4(3), pages 509-528, Fall.
    10. Spence, Michael, 1976. "Product Differentiation and Welfare," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 66(2), pages 407-414, May.
    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. Emanuele Bacchiega & Olivier Bonroy & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2018. "Contract contingency in vertically related markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 772-791, October.

    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. Swapnendu Bandyopadhyay & Rajat Acharyya, 2004. "Process and Product Innovation: Complementarity in a Vertically Differentiated Monopoly with Discrete Consumer Types," The Japanese Economic Review, Japanese Economic Association, vol. 55(2), pages 175-200, June.
    2. Emanuele Bacchiega & Olivier Bonroy & Emmanuel Petrakis, 2018. "Contract contingency in vertically related markets," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(4), pages 772-791, October.
    3. Yong-Hwan Noh & Giancarlo Moschini, 2006. "Vertical Product Differentiation, Entry-Deterrence Strategies, and Entry Qualities," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 29(3), pages 227-252, November.
    4. Acharyya, Rajat & Banerjee, Swapnendu, 2012. "On tariff and quality innovation in a market with discrete preferences," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 917-925.
    5. Olivier Bonroy & Christos Constantatos, 2015. "On the Economics of Labels: How Their Introduction Affects the Functioning of Markets and the Welfare of All Participants," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(1), pages 239-259.
    6. Francisco Martínez-Sánchez, 2007. "The Role of an Imitating Firm in a Dynamic Context," Lecturas de Economía, Universidad de Antioquia, Departamento de Economía, issue 67, pages 225-240, Julio-Dic.
    7. repec:gbl:wpaper:2013-01 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Lambertini, Luca & Mantovani, Andrea, 2009. "Process and product innovation by a multiproduct monopolist: A dynamic approach," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 508-518, July.
    9. Acharyya, Rajat & García-Alonso, María D.C., 2012. "Income based price subsidies and parallel imports," International Review of Economics & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 25-41.
    10. Luca Lambertini & Andrea Mantovani, 2010. "Process and product innovation: A differential game approach to product life cycle," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 6(2), pages 227-252, June.
    11. Bonroy, Olivier & Lemarié, Stéphane, 2012. "Downstream labeling and upstream price competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 347-360.
    12. Peter-J. Jost, 2023. "Price commitment and the strategic launch of a fighter brand," Quantitative Marketing and Economics (QME), Springer, vol. 21(3), pages 381-435, September.
    13. Lin, Ping & Saggi, Kamal, 2002. "Product differentiation, process R&D, and the nature of market competition," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 201-211, January.
    14. Werner Smolny, 2003. "Determinants of innovation behaviour and investment estimates for west-german manufacturing firms," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(5), pages 449-463.
    15. Bacchiega, Emanuele & Minniti, Antonio, 2009. "The Quality-Income effect and the selection of location," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 209-215, March.
    16. Acharyya, Rajat, 2005. "Quality discrimination among income constrained consumers," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 86(2), pages 245-251, February.
    17. Luca Lambertini & Raimondello Orsini, 2015. "Quality Improvement and Process Innovation in Monopoly: A Dynamic Analysis," Working Paper series 15-12, Rimini Centre for Economic Analysis.
    18. O. Tarola & C. Vergari, 2012. "A note on acquisition of complements in a vertically differentiated market," Working Papers wp832, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.
    19. Onur A. Koska, 2020. "Sourcing product quality for foreign market entry," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 156(3), pages 669-702, August.
    20. Gerhard Orosel & Klaus G. Zauner, 2004. "Vertical Product Differentiation When Quality is Unobservable to Buyers," CESifo Working Paper Series 1271, CESifo.
    21. Olof Ejermo & Börje Johansson, 2003. "Process Innovations in a Duopoly with Two Regions," ERSA conference papers ersa03p265, European Regional Science Association.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Monopoly; Vertical product differentiation; Vertical relationships;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L12 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Monopoly; Monopolization Strategies
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L14 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Transactional Relationships; Contracts and Reputation

    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:eee:ecolet:v:121:y:2013:i:1:p:137-140. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolet .

    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.