IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nea/journl/y2017i34p39-57.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Bargaining Power and Market Power: Comparison and Policy Implications

Author

Listed:
  • Shastitko, A.

    (MSU, Moscow, Russia
    RANEPA, Moscow, Russia)

  • Pavlova, N.

    (RANEPA, Moscow, Russia
    MSU, Moscow, Russia)

Abstract

Modern economic literature fails to provide a clear demarcation line between the concepts of market power, bargaining power and countervailing buyer power. Partly this can be explained by methodological limitations of the existing approaches to analyzing these categories. But the issue cannot be limited to merely a theoretical debate, as the choice of interpretation influences the ways in which antitrust policy is implemented. The issue in question is of special importance in cases of bilateral monopoly. The article aims at providing an approach to differentiate between market power and bargaining power based on results of theoretical differentiating and experimental empirical studies. Such an approach allows us to define bargaining power in a wide and narrow sense, revealing the role of institutional factors and chosen strategies. Bargaining power in its narrow sense excludes the aspects related to market power and represents the institutional characteristics of exchange as well as firms individual strategies of dealing with counterparts on the market. To analyze the different ways in which market power and bargaining power can correspond we study cases of symmetrical and asymmetrical bargaining power without market power, as well as with market power on both sides. We demonstrate that the effects of market power - in terms of both coordination and distribution - can be similar to the effects of asymmetrical bargaining power, which serves as one of the reasons for confusing between the two. The existing trends in Russian antitrust policy demonstrate the need for a balanced approach to assessing actions that disrupt competition and actions explained by asymmetrical bargaining power in the narrow sense.

Suggested Citation

  • Shastitko, A. & Pavlova, N., 2017. "Bargaining Power and Market Power: Comparison and Policy Implications," Journal of the New Economic Association, New Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 39-57.
    • Handle: RePEc:nea:journl:y:2017:i:34:p:39-57
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.econorus.org/repec/journl/2017-34-39-57r.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, April.
    2. Smith, Vernon L. & Williams, Arlington W., 1982. "The effects of rent asymmetries in experimental auction markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 3(1), pages 99-116, March.
    3. Shastitko, Andrey & Golovanova, Svetlana, 2016. "Meeting blindly… Is Austrian economics useful for dynamic capabilities theory?," Russian Journal of Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 86-110.
    4. Markin, Maxim, 2012. "How State Regulation of Retail Trade was Justified: an Empirical Analysis of the Arguments," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, pages 147-162, August.
    5. Davis, Douglas D. & Williams, Arlington W., 1986. "The effects of rent asymmetries in posted offer markets," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 7(3), pages 303-316, September.
    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. Andrey Shastitko & Claude Ménard & Natalia Pavlova, 2018. "The curse of antitrust facing bilateral monopoly: Is regulation hopeless?," Russian Journal of Economics, ARPHA Platform, vol. 4(2), pages 175-196, June.
    2. Andrey Ye. SHASTITKO & Anastasiya A. SHPAKOVA, 2018. "Electronic Document Interchange in the Contractual Relationship," Upravlenets, Ural State University of Economics, vol. 9(5), pages 2-10, 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. Nathalie Greenan & Marc-Arthur Diaye & Patricia Crifo, 2004. "Pourquoi les entreprises évaluent-elles individuellement leurs salariés ?," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 164(3), pages 27-55.
    2. Bosch-Domènech, Antoni & Vriend, Nicolaas J., 2013. "On the role of non-equilibrium focal points as coordination devices," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 52-67.
    3. van Damme, Eric & Hurkens, Sjaak, 1999. "Endogenous Stackelberg Leadership," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 105-129, July.
    4. Dennis L. Gärtner, 2022. "Corporate Leniency in a Dynamic World: The Preemptive Push of an Uncertain Future," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 70(1), pages 119-146, March.
    5. Antonio Cabrales & Rosemarie Nagel & Roc Armenter, 2007. "Equilibrium selection through incomplete information in coordination games: an experimental study," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(3), pages 221-234, September.
    6. Paul Pezanis-Christou & Abdolkarim Sadrieh, 2003. "Elicited bid functions in (a)symmetric first-price auctions," Working Papers 85, Barcelona School of Economics.
    7. Ruffle, Bradley J., 2005. "Tax and subsidy incidence equivalence theories: experimental evidence from competitive markets," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(8), pages 1519-1542, August.
    8. Gabriele Camera & Cary Deck & David Porter, 2020. "Do economic inequalities affect long-run cooperation and prosperity?," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 23(1), pages 53-83, March.
    9. Simai He & Jay Sethuraman & Xuan Wang & Jiawei Zhang, 2017. "A NonCooperative Approach to Cost Allocation in Joint Replenishment," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 65(6), pages 1562-1573, December.
    10. Maarten C.W. Janssen, 1997. "Focal Points," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 97-091/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    11. Michael Kosfeld, 2002. "Stochastic strategy adjustment in coordination games," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 20(2), pages 321-339.
    12. Sanjeev Goyal & Fernando Vega-Redondo, 2000. "Learning, Network Formation and Coordination," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0113, Econometric Society.
    13. Andrea Isoni & Robert Sugden & Jiwei Zheng, 2018. "The Pizza Night Game: Efficiency, Conflict and Inequality in Tacit Bargaining Games with Focal Points," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) 18-01, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    14. Ennis, Huberto M. & Keister, Todd, 2005. "Government policy and the probability of coordination failures," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 939-973, May.
    15. Smith, Lisa C. & Chavas, Jean-Paul, 1999. "Supply response of West African agricultural households," FCND discussion papers 69, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    16. Fletschner, Diana K., 2000. "Enhancing Rural Women'S Access To Capital: Why It Is Important And How It Can Be Done. The Case Of Colombia," Staff Papers 12640, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics.
    17. Pal, Rupayan, 2010. "Technology adoption in a differentiated duopoly: Cournot versus Bertrand," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(2), pages 128-136, June.
    18. Giovanni Facchini & Freek van Megen & Peter Borm & Stef Tijs, 1997. "Congestion Models And Weighted Bayesian Potential Games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 193-206, March.
    19. Zhang, Boyu & Hofbauer, Josef, 2016. "Quantal response methods for equilibrium selection in 2×2 coordination games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 19-31.
    20. Dieter Balkenborg & Rosemarie Nagel, 2016. "An Experiment on Forward vs. Backward Induction: How Fairness and Level k Reasoning Matter," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 17(3), pages 378-408, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    market power; bargaining power; antitrust policy; competition; bilateral monopoly; experimental economic;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L4 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies

    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:nea:journl:y:2017:i:34:p:39-57. 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: Alexey Tcharykov (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nearuea.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.