Intertemporal Emissions Trading and Market Power: Modeling a Dominant Firm with a Competitive Fringe

2011 ◽  
pp. 9-32
Author(s):  
Julien Chevallier
Games ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
Francisco J. André ◽  
Luis Miguel de Castro

This article focuses on the strategic behavior of firms in the output and the emissions markets in the presence of market power. We consider the existence of a dominant firm in the permit market and different structures in the output market, including Cournot and two versions of the Stackelberg model, depending on whether the permit dominant firm is a leader or a follower in the output market. In all three models, the firm that dominates the permit market is more sensitive to its initial allocation than its competitor in terms of abatement and less sensitive in terms of output. In all three models, output is decreasing and the permit price is increasing in the permit dominant firm’s initial allocation. In the Cournot model, permit dominance is fruitless in terms of output and profit if the initial allocation is symmetric. Output leadership is more relevant than permit dominance since an output leader always tends to, ceteris paribus, produce more and make more profit whether it also dominates the permit market or not. This leadership can only be overcompensated for by distributing a larger share of permits to the output follower, and only if the total number of permits is large enough. In terms of welfare, Stackelberg is always superior to Cournot. If the initial permit allocation is symmetric, welfare is higher when the same firm dominates the output and the permit market at the same time.


1984 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 628
Author(s):  
Stephen Martin ◽  
Alice Patricia White
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 70 ◽  
pp. 98-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rolf Golombek ◽  
Alfonso A. Irarrazabal ◽  
Lin Ma

Author(s):  
Ingo Vogelsang

AbstractGerman telecommunications reform came late because of high institutional constraints, powerful beneficiaries and reasonable functioning of the old system. It finally occurred because (1) the beneficiaries had less to lose, (2) Germany was falling behind, (3) reform was proven to work abroad and (4) the EC exerted pressure. The reform, particularly separation of posts from telecommunications, privatization of Deutsche Telekom and the creation of the RegTP, brought radical changes and the formation of new beneficiaries. The current sector crisis should spur research in the stability of competition in network industries and a reevaluation of the current reforms. Further reforms are required by new EC rules that will provide a more unified framework for the entire telecommunications sector. In the long run, privatization and liberalization will be completed, while some kinds of telecommunications-specific regulation will continue. Dominant firm regulation of end-user services is likely to be abolished down the road, while bottleneck regulation may persist. The remaining amount of dominant firm regulation and the pace of deregulation will depend heavily on market boundaries between (a) wireless and fixed networks, (b) high and low capacity subscriber access and (c) high-density and lowdensity networks. Assessing the interaction between market boundaries and market power requires economic research of intermodal competition and market power.


1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 499-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simran K. Kahai ◽  
David L. Kaserman ◽  
John W. Mayo

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document