IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rje/randje/v31y2000isummerp375-394.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Durable-Goods Monopoly: Laboratory Market and Bargaining Experiments

Author

Listed:
  • Stanley S. Reynolds

Abstract

Results from single-period monopoly experiments (nondurable environment) are compared with results from multiperiod experiments that have features of a durable-goods environment. Average prices were below the static monopoly benchmark price in all settings. Observed initial prices were higher in multiperiod experiments than in single-period experiments, in contrast to equilibrium predictions. Prices in multiperiod experiments tended to fall over time; there was less price cutting in market experiments than in bargaining experiments. There was substantial demand withholding by buyers in multiperiod experiments. A version of bounded rationality is a promising candidate for explaining deviations from equilibrium predictions.

Suggested Citation

  • Stanley S. Reynolds, 2000. "Durable-Goods Monopoly: Laboratory Market and Bargaining Experiments," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(2), pages 375-394, Summer.
    • Handle: RePEc:rje:randje:v:31:y:2000:i:summer:p:375-394
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Reynolds, Stanley S., 2001. "Multi-period bargaining: asymmetric information and risk aversion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 72(3), pages 309-315, September.
    2. van Damme, E.E.C. & Larouche, P. & Müller, W., 2006. "Abuse of a Dominant Position : Cases and Experiments," Discussion Paper 2006-020, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
    3. Nur Ayvaz‐Çavdaroğlu & Mürüvvet Büyükboyacı, 2022. "Analyzing multiple pricing decisions for substitutes under stochastic demand: An experiment," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 43(5), pages 1351-1361, July.
    4. Vincent Mak & Amnon Rapoport & Eyran J. Gisches & Jiaojie Han, 2014. "Purchasing Scarce Products Under Dynamic Pricing: An Experimental Investigation," Manufacturing & Service Operations Management, INFORMS, vol. 16(3), pages 425-438, July.
    5. Bayer, Ralph-C., 2010. "Intertemporal price discrimination and competition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(2), pages 273-293, February.
    6. Mohammed Al-Hitmi & Salman Ahmad & Atif Iqbal & Sanjeevikumar Padmanaban & Imtiaz Ashraf, 2018. "Selective Harmonic Elimination in a Wide Modulation Range Using Modified Newton–Raphson and Pattern Generation Methods for a Multilevel Inverter," Energies, MDPI, vol. 11(2), pages 1-16, February.
    7. Heinrich Ursprung & Katarina Zigova, 2021. "The Ultimate Coasian Commitment: Estimating and Explaining Artist-Specific Death Effects," Working Papers CEB 21-013, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
    8. Le Coq, Chloe & Orzen, Henrik, 2006. "Do forward markets enhance competition?: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 415-431, November.
    9. Vincent Mak & Amnon Rapoport & Eyran J. Gisches, 2018. "Dynamic Pricing Decisions and Seller-Buyer Interactions under Capacity Constraints," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-23, February.
    10. Rosato, Antonio, 2017. "Sequential negotiations with loss-averse buyers," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 290-304.
    11. Jack Fanning & Andrew Kloosterman, 2022. "An experimental test of the Coase conjecture: Fairness in dynamic bargaining," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 53(1), pages 138-165, March.
    12. Beckman & Gregory DeAngelo & Smith, 2015. "Dictator monopolies and essential goods: experimental evidence," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(59), pages 6461-6478, December.
    13. Fanning, Jack, 2022. "Fairness and the Coase conjecture," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 93(C).
    14. Atasoy, Ayse Tugba & Harmsen-van Hout, Marjolein & Madlener, Reinhard, 2018. "Strategic Demand Response to Dynamic Pricing: A Lab Experiment for the Electricity Market," FCN Working Papers 5/2018, E.ON Energy Research Center, Future Energy Consumer Needs and Behavior (FCN), revised Jan 2020.

    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:rje:randje:v:31:y:2000:i:summer:p:375-394. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.rje.org .

    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.