Industry equilibrium and welfare in monopolistic competition under uncertainty

2020 ◽  
Vol 130 (2) ◽  
pp. 187-218
Author(s):  
A. Shapoval ◽  
V. M. Goncharenko
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Winston Wei Dou ◽  
Yan Ji

We develop a continuous-time industry equilibrium model of monopolistic competition to understand how product markups are determined in the presence of external financing costs and customer capital. Firms optimally set markups to balance the tradeoff between profiting from their existing customer base and developing their future customer base. We characterize how the equilibrium markups are determined by the interaction between the marginal value of corporate liquidity and the marginal value of customer base. Firms’ markups are more responsive to changes in their marginal value of corporate liquidity when the marginal value of customer base is higher. Moreover, the model predicts that greater product market threats lead to more conservative financial policies, which is supported by the data. This paper was accepted by Gustavo Manso, finance.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dalia Marin ◽  
Linda Rousová ◽  
Thierry Verdier

Abstract What determines whether or not multinational firms transplant the mode of organisation to other countries? We embed the theory of knowledge hierarchies in an industry equilibrium model of monopolistic competition to examine how the economic environment may affect the decision of multinational firms about transplanting the mode of organization to other countries. We test the theory with original and matched parent and affiliate data on the level of decentralization of 660 Austrian and German multinational firms and 2200 of their affiliate firms in Eastern Europe. We find that market competition in both home and host markets is an important driver of organizational transfer to host countries: An increase in competition in the home (host) market by 10 percentage points lowers (increases) the probability of transplanting by 9 (7) percentage points.


Author(s):  
Avinash Dixit

If formal institutions of contract governance are absent or ineffective, traders try to substitute relational governance based on norms and sanctions. However, these alternatives need good information and communication concerning members’ actions; that works well only in relatively small communities. If there are fixed costs, the market has too few firms for perfect competition. The optimum must be a second best, balancing the effectiveness of contract governance and dead-weight loss of monopoly. This chapter explores this idea using a spatial model with monopolistic competition. It is found that relational governance constrains the size of firms and can cause inefficiently excessive entry, beyond the excess that already occurs in a spatial model without governance problems. Effects of alternative methods of improving governance to ameliorate this inefficiency are explored.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document