IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/indorg/v50y2017icp1-33.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Industry structure and collusion with uniform yardstick competition: Theory and experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Dijkstra, Peter T.
  • Haan, Marco A.
  • Mulder, Machiel

Abstract

For an industry that is subject to uniform yardstick regulation, we study cartel stability and the impact of cartels on the regulated price. In a theoretical model, an increase in the number of symmetric firms may facilitate collusion. Our laboratory experiment suggests that this effect is even stronger than what theory predicts. Theory predicts that firm-size heterogeneity hinders collusion, but leads to higher regulated prices if firms do not collude. In a laboratory experiment we find that the first effect is stronger, implying that in a more heterogeneous industry regulated prices are lower.

Suggested Citation

  • Dijkstra, Peter T. & Haan, Marco A. & Mulder, Machiel, 2017. "Industry structure and collusion with uniform yardstick competition: Theory and experiments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-33.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:indorg:v:50:y:2017:i:c:p:1-33
    DOI: 10.1016/j.ijindorg.2016.10.001
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167718716302739
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2016.10.001?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 search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David J. Cooper & Kai-Uwe K?hn, 2014. "Communication, Renegotiation, and the Scope for Collusion," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(2), pages 247-278, May.
    2. Jamasb, Tooraj & Nillesen, Paul & Pollitt, Michael, 2004. "Strategic behaviour under regulatory benchmarking," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 825-843, September.
    3. Tangeras, Thomas P., 2002. "Collusion-proof yardstick competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(2), pages 231-254, February.
    4. Huck, Steffen & Normann, Hans-Theo & Oechssler, Jorg, 2004. "Two are few and four are many: number effects in experimental oligopolies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 435-446, April.
    5. James W. Friedman, 1971. "A Non-cooperative Equilibrium for Supergames," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 38(1), pages 1-12.
    6. Barla, Philippe, 2000. "Firm size inequality and market power," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 693-722, July.
    7. Potters, Jan & Rockenbach, Bettina & Sadrieh, Abdolkarim & van Damme, Eric, 2004. "Collusion under yardstick competition: an experimental study," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(7), pages 1017-1038, September.
    8. Klaus Abbink & Jordi Brandts, 2005. "Price Competition Under Cost Uncertainty: A Laboratory Analysis," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 43(3), pages 636-648, July.
    9. Abbink, Klaus & Brandts, Jordi, 2008. "24. Pricing in Bertrand competition with increasing marginal costs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 1-31, May.
    10. MiguelA. Fonseca & Hans-Theo Normann, 2008. "Mergers, Asymmetries and Collusion: Experimental Evidence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(527), pages 387-400, March.
    11. Hinloopen,Jeroen (ed.), 2009. "Experiments and Competition Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521493420.
    12. Mason, Charles F & Phillips, Owen R & Nowell, Clifford, 1992. "Duopoly Behavior in Asymmetric Markets: An Experimental Evaluation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 74(4), pages 662-670, November.
    13. Maria Bigoni & Sven-Olof Fridolfsson & Chloé Le Coq & Giancarlo Spagnolo, 2012. "fines, leniency, and rewards in antitrust," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(2), pages 368-390, June.
    14. Cason, Timothy N. & Mui, Vai-Lam, 2015. "Rich communication, social motivations, and coordinated resistance against divide-and-conquer: A laboratory investigation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 146-159.
    15. Dassler, Thoralf & Parker, David & Saal, David S., 2006. "Methods and trends of performance benchmarking in UK utility regulation," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 166-174, September.
    16. Jamasb, Tooraj & Pollitt, Michael, 2007. "Incentive regulation of electricity distribution networks: Lessons of experience from Britain," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 6163-6187, December.
    17. Argenton, Cédric & Müller, Wieland, 2012. "Collusion in experimental Bertrand duopolies with convex costs: The role of cost asymmetry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 508-517.
    18. Hans-Theo Normann & Brian Wallace, 2012. "The impact of the termination rule on cooperation in a prisoner’s dilemma experiment," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 41(3), pages 707-718, August.
    19. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    20. Andrei Shleifer, 1985. "A Theory of Yardstick Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(3), pages 319-327, Autumn.
    21. Burns, Phil & Jenkins, Cloda & Riechmann, Christoph, 2005. "The role of benchmarking for yardstick competition," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(4), pages 302-309, December.
    22. Owen Phillips & Dale Menkhaus & John Thurow, 2011. "The Small Firm in a Quantity Choosing Game: Some Experimental Evidence," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 38(2), pages 191-207, March.
    23. A. Yatchew, 2000. "Scale economies in electricity distribution: a semiparametric analysis," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(2), pages 187-210.
    24. Fonseca, Miguel A. & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2012. "Explicit vs. tacit collusion—The impact of communication in oligopoly experiments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1759-1772.
    25. Ivaldi, Marc & Jullien, Bruno & Rey, Patrick & Seabright, Paul & Tirole, Jean, 2003. "The Economics of Tacit Collusion," IDEI Working Papers 186, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    26. Fumitoshi Mizutani & Hideo Kozumi & Noriaki Matsushima, 2009. "Does yardstick regulation really work? Empirical evidence from Japan’s rail industry," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 36(3), pages 308-323, December.
    27. Haffner, Robert & Helmer, Dorine & van Til, Harry, 2010. "Investment and Regulation: The Dutch Experience," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 23(5), pages 34-46, June.
    28. Jeroen Hinloopen & Adriaan R. Soetevent, 2008. "Laboratory evidence on the effectiveness of corporate leniency programs," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 607-616, June.
    29. Yatchew, Adonis, 2001. "Incentive Regulation of Distributing Utilities Using Yardstick Competition," The Electricity Journal, Elsevier, vol. 14(1), pages 56-60.
    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. Agrell, Per J. & Teusch, Jonas, 2020. "Predictability and strategic behavior under frontier regulation," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 137(C).
    2. Palencia-González, Francisco J. & Navío-Marco, Julio & Juberías-Cáceres, Gema, 2020. "Analysis of brand influence in the rockets and feathers effect using disaggregated data," Research in International Business and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    3. Ale-Chilet, Jorge & Chen, Cuicui & Li, Jing & Reynaert, Mathias, 2021. "Colluding Against Environmental Regulation," TSE Working Papers 21-1204, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    4. Jonas Teusch, 2019. "When Efficient Firms Flock Together: Merger Incentives Under Yardstick Competition," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 55(2), pages 237-255, September.
    5. Dijkstra, Peter T. & Haan, Marco A. & Mulder, Machiel, 2017. "Design of yardstick competition and consumer prices: Experimental evidence," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 261-271.
    6. Azacis, Helmuts & Vida, Peter, 2021. "Fighting Collusion: An Implementation Theory Approach," Cardiff Economics Working Papers E2021/19, Cardiff University, Cardiff Business School, Economics Section.
    7. Xiaofeng Xu & Jun Hao & Yirui Deng, 2017. "Industry Interdependence Dynamics and Structure Change Causal Analysis: An Empirical Study on China’s Shipbuilding Industry," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-19, March.
    8. Floris Montfoort & Peter T. Dijkstra & Machiel Mulder, 2024. "The impact of energy transition on distribution network costs and effectiveness of yardstick competition: an empirical analysis for the Netherlands," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 65(1), pages 85-107, June.
    9. Matsukawa, Isamu, 2019. "Detecting collusion in retail electricity markets: Results from Japan for 2005 to 2010," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 16-23.

    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. repec:dgr:rugsom:14010-eef is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Dijkstra, Peter & Haan, Marco A. & Mulder, Machiel, 2014. "Industry structure and collusion with uniform yardstick competition," Research Report 14010-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    3. Dijkstra, Peter T. & Haan, Marco A. & Mulder, Machiel, 2017. "Design of yardstick competition and consumer prices: Experimental evidence," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 261-271.
    4. Jan Potters & Sigrid Suetens, 2013. "Oligopoly Experiments In The Current Millennium," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 439-460, July.
    5. Fischer, Christian & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2019. "Collusion and bargaining in asymmetric Cournot duopoly—An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 360-379.
    6. Harrington, Joseph E. & Hernan Gonzalez, Roberto & Kujal, Praveen, 2016. "The relative efficacy of price announcements and express communication for collusion: Experimental findings," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 251-264.
    7. Dijkstra, Pieter & Haan, Marco & Mulder, Machiel, 2015. "Design of yardstick competition and consumer prices," Research Report 15004-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).
    8. Dijkstra, Peter T., 2015. "Price leadership and unequal market sharing: Collusion in experimental markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 80-97.
    9. Soo Keong Yong & Lana Friesen & Stuart McDonald, 2018. "Emission Taxes, Clean Technology Cooperation, And Product Market Collusion: Experimental Evidence," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(4), pages 1950-1979, October.
    10. Peter T. Dijkstra & Marco A. Haan & Lambert Schoonbeek, 2021. "Leniency Programs and the Design of Antitrust: Experimental Evidence with Free-Form Communication," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 59(1), pages 13-36, August.
    11. Gomez-Martinez, Francisco, 2016. "Partial Cartels and Mergers with Heterogeneous Firms: Experimental Evidence," MPRA Paper 81132, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 01 Jul 2017.
    12. Bodnar, Olivia & Fremerey, Melinda & Normann, Hans-Theo & Schad, Jannika Leonie, 2021. "The effects of private damage claims on cartel activity: Experimental evidence," DICE Discussion Papers 315, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE), revised 2021.
    13. Darai, D. & Roux, C. & Schneider, F., 2019. "Mergers, Mavericks, and Tacit Collusion," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1984, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    14. Normann, Hans-Theo & Rösch, Jürgen & Schultz, Luis Manuel, 2015. "Do buyer groups facilitate collusion?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 72-84.
    15. Andreas Freitag & Catherine Roux & Christian Thöni, 2021. "Communication And Market Sharing: An Experiment On The Exchange Of Soft And Hard Information," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 62(1), pages 175-198, February.
    16. Dechenaux, Emmanuel & Mago, Shakun D., 2019. "Communication and side payments in a duopoly with private costs: An experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 165(C), pages 157-184.
    17. Gomez-Martinez, Francisco, 2017. "Partial Cartels and Mergers with Heterogenous Firms: Experimental Evidence," EconStor Preprints 169380, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    18. Chowdhury, Subhasish M. & Crede, Carsten J., 2020. "Post-cartel tacit collusion: Determinants, consequences, and prevention," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    19. Haucap, Justus & Heldman, Christina & Rau, Holger A., 2024. "Gender and cooperation in the presence of negative externalities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 148-169.
    20. Argenton, Cédric & Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Müller, Wieland, 2024. "Cournot meets Bayes-Nash: A discontinuity in behavior in finitely repeated duopoly games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-12.
    21. Dijkstra, Peter T., 2014. "Price Leadership and Unequal Market Sharing," Research Report 14013-EEF, University of Groningen, Research Institute SOM (Systems, Organisations and Management).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Collusion; Industry structure; Yardstick competition; Experiment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games
    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation

    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:indorg:v:50:y:2017:i:c:p:1-33. 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/inca/505551 .

    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.