IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/euvwdp/265.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Over- and under-investment according to different benchmarks

Author

Listed:
  • Bolle, Friedel

Abstract

In a two-stage oligopoly, with investment in the first stage and quantity or price competition in the second stage, there is a kind of Folk Theorem: We find (i) over-investment if the goods are substitutes and competition is in strategic substitutes, (ii) under-investment if we have either complements instead of substitutes or strategic complements instead of strategic substitutes, and (iii) again over-investment if both attributes change. The existing literature, however, lacks a proof of this theorem and, in particular, it lacks a systematic comparison of the different benchmarks for over-and under-investment. A "naive" benchmark is the efficient investment with respect to the subgame perfect (closed loop) equilibrium quantities. Alternative benchmarks (which are more often proposed) are the open loop equilibrium investment or the welfare maximizing investment. The chosen benchmark is critical because the Folk Theorem applies (under certain conventional conditions) only for the naïve benchmark. The other two benchmarks require additional assumptions or the distinction of subcases.

Suggested Citation

  • Bolle, Friedel, 2008. "Over- and under-investment according to different benchmarks," Discussion Papers 265, European University Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder), Department of Business Administration and Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:euvwdp:265
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/24943/1/601337484.PDF
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grant, Simon & Quiggin, John, 1996. "Capital Precommitment and Competition in Supply Schedules," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 427-441, December.
    2. Suzumura, Kotaro, 1992. "Cooperative and Noncooperative R&D in an Oligopoly with Spillovers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1307-1320, December.
    3. Fudenberg, Drew & Tirole, Jean, 1984. "The Fat-Cat Effect, the Puppy-Dog Ploy, and the Lean and Hungry Look," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 74(2), pages 361-366, May.
    4. Tseng, Mei-Chiun, 2004. "Strategic choice of flexible manufacturing technologies," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(3), pages 223-227, October.
    5. Friedel Bolle, 2011. "Over- and under-investment according to different benchmarks," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 219-238, November.
    6. Long, Ngo Van & Soubeyran, Antoine, 2001. "Cost Manipulation Games in Oligopoly, with Costs of Manipulating," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 42(2), pages 505-533, May.
    7. Kamien, Morton I & Muller, Eitan & Zang, Israel, 1992. "Research Joint Ventures and R&D Cartels," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(5), pages 1293-1306, December.
    8. Elberfeld, Walter, 2003. "A note on technology choice, firm heterogeneity and welfare," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 593-605, April.
    9. X. Wang & Jingang Zhao, 2010. "Why are firms sometimes unwilling to reduce costs?," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 101(2), pages 103-124, October.
    10. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), 1989. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    11. Armin Schmutzler, 2007. "The relation between competition and innovation � Why is it such a mess?," SOI - Working Papers 0716, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich, revised Jan 2010.
    12. Xavier Vives, 2008. "Innovation And Competitive Pressure," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(3), pages 419-469, December.
    13. Somma, Ernesto, 1999. "The effect of incomplete information about future technological opportunities on pre-emption," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 765-799, August.
    14. Stanford, William G., 1986. "Subgame perfect reaction function equilibria in discounted duopoly supergames are trivial," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 226-232, June.
    15. James A. Brander & Barbara J. Spencer, 1983. "Strategic Commitment with R&D: The Symmetric Case," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 14(1), pages 225-235, Spring.
    16. Schmutzler, Armin, 2010. "The relation between competition and innovation -- Why is it such a mess?," CEPR Discussion Papers 7640, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Bulow, Jeremy I & Geanakoplos, John D & Klemperer, Paul D, 1985. "Multimarket Oligopoly: Strategic Substitutes and Complements," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 93(3), pages 488-511, June.
    18. Partha Dasgupta & Eric Maskin, 1986. "The Existence of Equilibrium in Discontinuous Economic Games, I: Theory," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 53(1), pages 1-26.
    19. Besley, Timothy & Suzumura, Kotaro, 1992. "Taxation and Welfare in an Oligopoly with Strategic Commitment," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 33(2), pages 413-431, May.
    20. Vives, Xavier, 1989. "Technological competition, uncertainty, and oligopoly," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 386-415, August.
    21. A. Michael Spence, 1977. "Entry, Capacity, Investment and Oligopolistic Pricing," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 8(2), pages 534-544, Autumn.
    22. Okuno-Fujiwara, Masahiro & Suzumura, Kotaro, 1993. "Symmetric Cournot Oligopoly and Economic Welfare: A Synthesis," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 3(1), pages 43-59, January.
    23. Shapiro, Carl, 1989. "Theories of oligopoly behavior," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 329-414, Elsevier.
    24. Athey, Susan & Schmutzler, Armin, 2001. "Investment and Market Dominance," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 1-26, Spring.
    25. Dixit, Avinash K, 1986. "Comparative Statics for Oligopoly," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 27(1), pages 107-122, February.
    26. Frederic H. Murphy & Yves Smeers, 2005. "Generation Capacity Expansion in Imperfectly Competitive Restructured Electricity Markets," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 53(4), pages 646-661, August.
    27. Vetter Henrik, 2007. "Taxes versus Permits in a Two-Stage Duopoly," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-15, May.
    28. R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), 1989. "Handbook of Industrial Organization," Handbook of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 2, number 2.
    29. Sacco, Dario & Schmutzler, Armin, 2011. "Is there a U-shaped relation between competition and investment?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 65-73, January.
    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. Sá, Nelson, 2015. "Market structure and welfare under monopolistic competition," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 69-72.
    2. Nelson Sá, 2015. "Market concentration and persuasive advertising: a theoretical approach," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 114(2), pages 127-151, March.
    3. Friedel Bolle, 2011. "Over- and under-investment according to different benchmarks," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 104(3), pages 219-238, November.

    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. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, September.
    2. Neary, J Peter & Leahy, Dermot, 2000. "Strategic Trade and Industrial Policy towards Dynamic Oligopolies," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 110(463), pages 484-508, April.
    3. Zhang, Anming, 2005. "Competition Models of Strategic Alliances," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 75-100, January.
    4. Goo, Moon Mo, 1997. "The measurement of market power: short-run, long-run, and dynamic adjustment models," ISU General Staff Papers 1997010108000012985, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Long, Ngo Van & Soubeyran, Antoine, 2001. "Cost Manipulation Games in Oligopoly, with Costs of Manipulating," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 42(2), pages 505-533, May.
    6. Akio Kawasaki & Ming Hsin Lin & Noriaki Matsushima, 2014. "Multi‐Market Competition, R&D, and Welfare in Oligopoly," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 80(3), pages 803-815, January.
    7. Schmutzler, Armin, 2013. "Competition and investment — A unified approach," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(5), pages 477-487.
    8. Stiebale, Joel, 2013. "The impact of cross-border mergers and acquisitions on the acquirers' R&D — Firm-level evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 31(4), pages 307-321.
    9. Montero, Juan-Pablo, 2002. "Permits, Standards, and Technology Innovation," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 23-44, July.
    10. Bernstein, Fernando & Federgruen, Awi, 2004. "Comparative statics, strategic complements and substitutes in oligopolies," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(6), pages 713-746, September.
    11. Luís Cabral, 2018. "We’re Number 1: Price Wars for Market Share Leadership," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(5), pages 2013-2030, May.
    12. Schmutzler, Armin, 2009. "The Relation Between Competition and Investment – Towards a Synthesis," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt8tt4457m, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    13. Kovác, Eugen & Vinogradov, Viatcheslav & Zigic, Kresimir, 2010. "Technological leadership and persistence of monopoly under endogenous entry: Static versus dynamic analysis," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1421-1441, August.
    14. Jovanovic, Dragan, 2013. "Mergers, managerial incentives, and efficiencies," DICE Discussion Papers 88, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    15. Asplund, Marcus, 2002. "Risk-averse firms in oligopoly," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 20(7), pages 995-1012, September.
    16. Antonio Tesoriere, 2015. "Competing R&D joint ventures in Cournot oligopoly with spillovers," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 115(3), pages 231-256, July.
    17. Kenneth Flamm, 1993. "Semiconductor Dependency and Strategic Trade Policy," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 24(1 Microec), pages 249-333.
    18. Lalit Manral, 2015. "The demand-side dynamics of entrant heterogeneity," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 401-445, April.
    19. Sun, Qunyan & Zhang, Anming & Li, Jie, 2005. "A study of optimal state shares in mixed oligopoly: Implications for SOE reform and foreign competition," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 1-27.
    20. Höffler, Felix & Kranz, Sebastian, 2011. "Legal unbundling can be a golden mean between vertical integration and ownership separation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 576-588, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Oligopoly; technology choice; efficiency; under-investment; overinvestment;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets

    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:zbw:euvwdp:265. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/fwffode.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.