IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/drm/wpaper/2011-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do followers really matter in Stackelberg competition?

Author

Listed:
  • Ludovic A. Julien
  • Olivier Musy
  • Aurélien W. Saïdi

Abstract

In this note, we consider a generalized T−stage Stackelberg oligopoly. We provide a proof and an interpretation that under the two necessary and sufficient conditions of linear aggregate demand and identical constant marginal costs, followers do not matter for leaders. Leaders act as rational myopic agents, voluntarily ignoring the number of followers and remaining stages, thereby behaving as Cournotian oligopolists. Strategies of incumbent firms are invariant to entry of new cohorts. Their profits can be studied by the way of two discount factors: the first impacting markup and the second impacting output supply. Some implications in terms of welfare and convergence toward competitive equilibrium are derived.

Suggested Citation

  • Ludovic A. Julien & Olivier Musy & Aurélien W. Saïdi, 2011. "Do followers really matter in Stackelberg competition?," EconomiX Working Papers 2011-10, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    • Handle: RePEc:drm:wpaper:2011-10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://economix.fr/pdf/dt/2011/WP_EcoX_2011-10.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ludovic Julien & Olivier Musy & Aurélien Saïdi, 2012. "On hierarchical competition in oligopoly," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 217-237, November.
    2. Federico Etro, 2008. "Stackelberg Competition with Endogenous Entry," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(532), pages 1670-1697, October.
    3. Ludovic A. Julien & Olivier Musy, 2011. "A Generalized Oligopoly Model With Conjectural Variations," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 411-433, July.
    4. John S. Heywood & Matthew McGinty, 2007. "Mergers among leaders and mergers among followers," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 12(12), pages 1-7.
    5. Amir, Rabah & Grilo, Isabel, 1999. "Stackelberg versus Cournot Equilibrium," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 1-21, January.
    6. Xavier Vives, 2001. "Oligopoly Pricing: Old Ideas and New Tools," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 026272040x, December.
    7. Hanif D. Sherali, 1984. "A Multiple Leader Stackelberg Model and Analysis," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 390-404, April.
    8. Anderson, Simon P. & Engers, Maxim, 1992. "Stackelberg versus Cournot oligopoly equilibrium," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 127-135, March.
    9. Ludovic Julien & Olivier Musy & Aurélien Saïdi, 2012. "On hierarchical competition in oligopoly," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 217-237, November.
    10. John S. Heywood & Matthew McGinty, 2008. "Leading and Merging: Convex Costs, Stackelberg, and the Merger Paradox," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 74(3), pages 879-893, January.
    11. Boyer, Marcel & Moreaux, Michel, 1986. "Perfect competition as the limit of a hierarchical market game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 22(2-3), pages 115-118.
    12. Daughety, Andrew F, 1990. "Beneficial Concentration," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(5), pages 1231-1237, December.
    13. Unknown, 1986. "Letters," Choices: The Magazine of Food, Farm, and Resource Issues, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 1(4), pages 1-9.
    14. Matsumura, Toshihiro, 1999. "Quantity-setting oligopoly with endogenous sequencing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 289-296, February.
    15. Richard Watt, 2002. "A Generalized Oligopoly Model," Metroeconomica, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(1), pages 46-55, February.
    16. Pal, Debashis & Sarkar, Jyotirmoy, 2001. "A Stackelberg Oligopoly with Nonidentical Firms," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 127-134, April.
    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. Toomas Hinnosaar, 2021. "Stackelberg Independence," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 214-238, March.

    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. Ludovic Julien & Olivier Musy & Aurélien Saïdi, 2012. "On hierarchical competition in oligopoly," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 107(3), pages 217-237, November.
    2. Ludovic Julien, 2011. "A note on Stackelberg competition," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 103(2), pages 171-187, June.
    3. Daniel Cracau & Benjamin Franz, 2013. "Judo Economics in Markets with Multiple Firms," FEMM Working Papers 130013, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    4. Attila Tasnádi, 2010. "Quantity-setting games with a dominant firm," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 99(3), pages 251-266, April.
    5. Cumbul, Eray, 2021. "Stackelberg versus Cournot oligopoly with private information," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    6. Pak-Sing Choi & Felix Munoz-Garcia, 2023. "Can more perishable products be welfare-improving?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 43(2), pages 1088-1097.
    7. Qiu, Hong & Zhu, Nan & Peng, Qiyuan, 2021. "Can a small fish become a big fish? Modeling leader-generating mergers in a Stackelberg market," Finance Research Letters, Elsevier, vol. 38(C).
    8. Amir, Rabah & Stepanova, Anna, 2006. "Second-mover advantage and price leadership in Bertrand duopoly," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 1-20, April.
    9. Colombo, Luca & Labrecciosa, Paola, 2019. "Stackelberg versus Cournot: A differential game approach," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 239-261.
    10. Daw Ma, 2014. "Can Emerging Market Protectionism Be Beneficial?," Asian Economic and Financial Review, Asian Economic and Social Society, vol. 4(9), pages 1175-1189, September.
    11. Tesoriere, Antonio, 2017. "Stackelberg equilibrium with many leaders and followers. The case of zero fixed costs," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(1), pages 102-117.
    12. Toomas Hinnosaar, 2021. "Stackelberg Independence," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 69(1), pages 214-238, March.
    13. Yasunori Okumura, 2017. "Asymmetric equilibria under price cap regulation," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 121(2), pages 133-151, June.
    14. MITRAILLE Sébastien & MOREAUX Michel, 2007. "Inventories and Endogenous Stackelberg Hierarchy in Two-period Cournot Oligopoly," LERNA Working Papers 07.02.223, LERNA, University of Toulouse.
    15. Tesoriere, Antonio, 2008. "Endogenous timing with infinitely many firms," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 1381-1388, November.
    16. Danyang Xie, 2003. "Toward a Theory of Asset Subscription," Finance 0303001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Ludovic A. Julien & Fabrice Tricou, 2008. "Market Price Mechanisms and Stackelberg General Equilibria," Working Papers hal-04140726, HAL.
    18. Julien, Ludovic A., 2017. "On noncooperative oligopoly equilibrium in the multiple leader–follower game," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 256(2), pages 650-662.
    19. Bersani, Alberto M. & Falbo, Paolo & Mastroeni, Loretta, 2022. "Is the ETS an effective environmental policy? Undesired interaction between energy-mix, fuel-switch and electricity prices," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    20. Xie, Danyang, 2010. "Subscription of shares," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 271-277, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Leader’s markup discount factor; linear economy; follower’s output discount factor; myopic behavior;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L20 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:drm:wpaper:2011-10. 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: Valerie Mignon (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/modemfr.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.