IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/16650.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Bailouts and the Preservation of Competition

Author

Listed:
  • James W. Roberts
  • Andrew Sweeting

Abstract

Governments rescue private companies partly to prevent other firms from gaining excessive market power. However, if failing firms exit, new entry may limit remaining firms' market power if there are potential entrants who can be as effective competitors as the firms leaving the market. We quantify these effects in the case of the 1984 bailout of timber companies that faced substantial losses on existing federal timber contracts. We predict that the bailout substantially increased sale prices in subsequent auctions because firms that might have might have been induced to enter without the bailout tended to have relatively low values.

Suggested Citation

  • James W. Roberts & Andrew Sweeting, 2010. "Bailouts and the Preservation of Competition," NBER Working Papers 16650, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:16650
    Note: IO
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w16650.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Susan Athey & Jonathan Levin & Enrique Seira, 2004. "Comparing Open and Sealed Bid Auctions: Theory and Evidence from Timber Auctions," Levine's Bibliography 122247000000000524, UCLA Department of Economics.
    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. Fang, Hanming & Tang, Xun, 2014. "Inference of bidders’ risk attitudes in ascending auctions with endogenous entry," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 180(2), pages 198-216.
    2. Hanming Fang & Xun Tang, 2013. "Inference of Bidders’ Risk Attitudes in Ascending Auctions with Endogenous Entry," PIER Working Paper Archive 13-056, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    3. Benjamin V. Rosa, 2019. "Resident Bid Preference, Affiliation, and Procurement Competition: Evidence from New Mexico," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(2), pages 161-208, June.
    4. Sabrina Peng, 2020. "Selective Entry in Highway Procurement Auctions," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 48(4), pages 519-533, December.
    5. Nathan Yang, 2011. "An Empirical Model of Industry Dynamics with Common Uncertainty and Learning from the Actions of Competitors," Working Papers 11-16, NET Institute.
    6. Ertaç, Seda & Hortaçsu, Ali & Roberts, James W., 2011. "Entry into auctions: An experimental analysis," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 168-178, March.
    7. Tong Li & Jingfeng Lu & Li Zhao, 2015. "Auctions with selective entry and risk averse bidders: theory and evidence," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(3), pages 524-545, September.
    8. Hanming Fang & Xun Tang, 2011. "Inference of Bidders’ Risk Attitudes in Ascending Auctions with Endogenous Entry, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 12-016, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 17 Apr 2012.

    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. Lamy, Laurent, 2012. "The econometrics of auctions with asymmetric anonymous bidders," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 167(1), pages 113-132.
    2. Gerard Marty & Raphaele Preget, 2007. "A Socio-economic Analysis of French Public Timber Sales," Working Papers - Cahiers du LEF 2007-03, Laboratoire d'Economie Forestiere, AgroParisTech-INRA.
    3. Marion, Justin, 2007. "Are bid preferences benign? The effect of small business subsidies in highway procurement auctions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(7-8), pages 1591-1624, August.
    4. Lange, Andreas & List, John A. & Price, Michael K., 2011. "Auctions with resale when private values are uncertain: Evidence from the lab and field," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 54-64, January.
    5. Yingyao Hu & David McAdams & Matthew Shum, 2009. "Nonparametric identification of auction models with non-separable unobserved heterogeneity," CeMMAP working papers CWP15/09, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    6. Hu, Yingyao, 2017. "The Econometrics of Unobservables -- Latent Variable and Measurement Error Models and Their Applications in Empirical Industrial Organization and Labor Economics [The Econometrics of Unobservables]," Economics Working Paper Archive 64578, The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics, revised 2021.
    7. Owen R. Phillips & Dale J. Menkhaus, 2009. "Maintaining Tacit Collusion in Repeated Ascending Auctions," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(1), pages 91-109, February.
    8. Pesendorfer, Martin & Cantillon, Estelle, 2007. "Combination Bidding in Multi-Unit Auctions," CEPR Discussion Papers 6083, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. An, Yonghong & Hu, Yingyao & Shum, Matthew, 2010. "Estimating first-price auctions with an unknown number of bidders: A misclassification approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 157(2), pages 328-341, August.
    10. Hanming Fang & Xun Tang, 2011. "Inference of Bidders’ Risk Attitudes in Ascending Auctions with Endogenous Entry, Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 12-016, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 17 Apr 2012.
    11. Susan Athey & Dominic Coey & Jonathan Levin, 2013. "Set-Asides and Subsidies in Auctions," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(1), pages 1-27, February.
    12. Susan Athey & Jonathan Levin & Enrique Seira, 2011. "Comparing open and Sealed Bid Auctions: Evidence from Timber Auctions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(1), pages 207-257.
    13. John Asker, 2010. "A Study of the Internal Organization of a Bidding Cartel," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(3), pages 724-762, June.
    14. Ferraro, Paul J., 2008. "Asymmetric information and contract design for payments for environmental services," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(4), pages 810-821, May.
    15. Patrick Bajari & Stephanie Houghton & Steve Tadelis, 2006. "Bidding for Incomplete Contracts: An Empirical Analysis," NBER Working Papers 12051, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Jingfeng Lu & Isabelle Perrigne, 2008. "Estimating risk aversion from ascending and sealed-bid auctions: the case of timber auction data," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(7), pages 871-896.
    17. Ertaç, Seda & Hortaçsu, Ali & Roberts, James W., 2011. "Entry into auctions: An experimental analysis," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 168-178, March.
    18. Shneyerov, Artyom & Wong, Adam Chi Leung, 2011. "Identification in first-price and Dutch auctions when the number of potential bidders is unobservable," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 574-582, June.
    19. Francesco Decarolis, 2009. "When the Highest Bidder Loses the Auction: Theory and Evidence from Public Procurement," 2009 Meeting Papers 130, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    20. Tong Li & Xiaoyong Zheng, 2009. "Entry and Competition Effects in First-Price Auctions: Theory and Evidence from Procurement Auctions," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 76(4), pages 1397-1429.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • D44 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Auctions
    • L20 - Industrial Organization - - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior - - - General
    • L44 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Antitrust Policy and Public Enterprise, Nonprofit Institutions, and Professional Organizations
    • L73 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Primary Products and Construction - - - Forest Products

    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:nbr:nberwo:16650. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.