IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cmu/gsiawp/159563074.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Economics of Predation: What Drives Pricing When There is Learning-by-Doing?

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Predatory pricing . a deliberate strategy of pricing aggressively in order to eliminate competitors . is one of the more contentious areas of antitrust policy. This paper uses a modern industry dynamics framework to characterize predatory pricing by isolating a Firm’s equilibrium predatory incentives. We present a dynamic stochastic game with learning-by-doing and entry and exit similar to the one studied by Cabral & Riordan (1994) and Besanko, Doraszelski, Kryukov & Satterthwaite (2010), and we compute the Markov perfect equilibria of this game over a wide range of parameter values. Our computational analysis reveals that equilibria involving behavior that resembles conventional notions of predatory pricing can arise for plausible parameter values. We then show how the equilibrium pricing condition can be decomposed into a variety of advantage-building and advantage-denying motives. We use our decomposition to formulate six alternative definitions of predatory incentives, including those implied by the economic definitions of predation offered by Ordover & Willig (1981) and Cabral & Riordan (1997). To assess the impact of these incentives on equilibrium behavior, for each definition, we compute counterfactual equilibria in which firms .ignore. the predatory incentives, and we then compare metrics of industry structure, conduct and performance (e.g., price, Herfindahl index, consumer surplus, and total surplus) under the counterfactual equilibria to those metrics in the actual equilibria. The economic impact of predatory incentives that emphasize the direct marginal impact of price on the likelihood of rival exit is relatively small for a wide range of parameter values. By contrast, the definitions of predatory incentives that have the greatest negative impacts on industry evolution and welfare are those that are fairly strict. For instance, if predatory incentives are defined to be the advantage-denying motive, we find these incentives have a significantly negative impact on long-run price, market concentration, per-period consumer surplus, and per-period total surplus, with minimal compensating benefits to consumers in the short and intermediate runs as the industry transitions to maturity. Our results have implications for how one might structure a “marginal profit” implementation of a profit sacrifice standard for establishing predatory pricing.

Suggested Citation

  • David Besanko & Ulrich Doraszelski & Yaroslav Kryukov, "undated". "The Economics of Predation: What Drives Pricing When There is Learning-by-Doing?," GSIA Working Papers 2011-E8, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
  • Handle: RePEc:cmu:gsiawp:159563074
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://student-3k.tepper.cmu.edu/gsiadoc/WP/2011-E8.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edlin, Aaron S. & Farrell, Joseph, 2002. "The American Airlines Case: A Chance to Clarify Predation Policy," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt0wx7c4zf, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    2. Kreps, David M. & Wilson, Robert, 1982. "Reputation and imperfect information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 253-279, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Yaroslav Kryukov & Ulrich Doraszelski & David Besanko, "undated". "The economics of predation: What drives pricing when there is learning-by-doing?," GSIA Working Papers 2011-E30, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
    2. William Comanor & H. Frech, 2015. "Economic Rationality and the Areeda–Turner Rule," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 46(3), pages 253-268, May.
    3. Kim, Sung-Hwan, 2009. "Predatory reputation in US airline markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 592-604, September.
    4. Besanko, David & Doraszelski, Ulrich & Kryukov, Yaroslav, 2020. "Sacrifice tests for predation in a dynamic pricing model: Ordover and Willig (1981) and Cabral and Riordan (1997) meet Ericson and Pakes (1995)," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Besanko, David & Doraszelski, Ulrich & Kryukov, Yaroslav, 2011. "The economics of predation: What drives pricing when there is learning-by-doing?," CEPR Discussion Papers 8708, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Paulson Gjerde, Kathy A. & Slotnick, Susan A., 2004. "Quality and reputation: The effects of external and internal factors over time," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1), pages 1-20, May.
    7. Janvier D. Nkurunziza, 2005. "Reputation and Credit without Collateral in Africa`s Formal Banking," Economics Series Working Papers WPS/2005-02, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    8. Kaplow, Louis & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Antitrust," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 1073-1225, Elsevier.
    9. Peter-J. Jost, 2023. "Auditing versus monitoring and the role of commitment," Review of Accounting Studies, Springer, vol. 28(2), pages 463-496, June.
    10. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    11. Germán Coloma, 2002. "Un Modelo Integrado de Depredación y Colusión," Latin American Journal of Economics-formerly Cuadernos de Economía, Instituto de Economía. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile., vol. 39(116), pages 123-133.
    12. Ambrus, Attila & Pathak, Parag A., 2011. "Cooperation over finite horizons: A theory and experiments," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 500-512.
    13. Alessio Emanuele BIONDO, 2011. "High-Tech Products and the Double Adverse Selection: Does Commercial Distribution Worsen Efficiency?," Journal of Knowledge Management, Economics and Information Technology, ScientificPapers.org, vol. 1(7), pages 1-18, December.
    14. Michael Waldman, 1987. "Underinvestment in Entry Deterrence: When and Why," UCLA Economics Working Papers 456, UCLA Department of Economics.
    15. William Tracy, 2014. "Paradox Lost: The Evolution of Strategies in Selten’s Chain Store Game," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 43(1), pages 83-103, January.
    16. Chemmanur, Thomas J. & Fulghieri, Paolo, 2006. "Competition and cooperation among exchanges: A theory of cross-listing and endogenous listing standards," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 82(2), pages 455-489, November.
    17. Dilmé, Francesc, 2019. "Dynamic quality signaling with hidden actions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 116-136.
    18. Lanfei Shi & Siva Viswanathan, 2023. "Optional Verification and Signaling in Online Matching Markets: Evidence from a Randomized Field Experiment," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 34(4), pages 1603-1621, December.
    19. Gilles Hilary & Sterling Huang, 2023. "Trust and Contracting: Evidence from Church Sex Scandals," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 182(2), pages 421-442, January.
    20. Bagwell, Kyle & Wolinsky, Asher, 2002. "Game theory and industrial organization," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 49, pages 1851-1895, Elsevier.

    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:cmu:gsiawp:159563074. 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: Steve Spear (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cmu.edu/tepper .

    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.