Market size, entry costs and free entry Cournot equilibrium

Author(s):  
Krishnendu Ghosh Dastidar ◽  
Sugata Marjit
2007 ◽  
Vol 09 (02) ◽  
pp. 243-268
Author(s):  
NORITSUGU NAKANISHI

We examine the long-run outcomes under free entry-exit when each firm not only takes account of the effects of her own entry-exit on the market structure but also takes full account of the effects due to other firms' simultaneous entry-exit. Adopting the framework of the theory of social situations (TOSS), we derive a unique set of stable outcomes, which is based only on two fundamental assumptions of the "firms-as-profit-maximizers" and the "free entry-exit," but not on any specific mode of play (i.e., a specification of how the players make their decisions, take actions within the market, and think of the other players' behavior). We compare the stable outcome with the long-run equilibria under the competitive mode, the Cournot-Nash mode, and the monopolistically competitive mode. We find that (i) each of these equilibria can be compatible with the stable outcome only if the market size is small and (ii) none of them can be compatible with the stable outcome if the market size is sufficiently large; Further, (iii), for almost all market size, the monopolistically competitive equilibrium is compatible with the stable outcome if the elasticity of substitution is sufficiently close to (but, greater than) unity. In a sense, when the market size is sufficiently large, these three modes of play are not consistent with two fundamental assumptions.


Econometrica ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 51 (2) ◽  
pp. 455 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. J. Laffont ◽  
M. Moreaux

1980 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 473 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Novshek

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Armend Muja ◽  
Zef Dedaj ◽  
Kaltrina Bunjaku

2005 ◽  
Vol 55 (3) ◽  
pp. 255-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
András Simonovits

According to the dominant view, the quality of individual scientific papers can be evaluated by the standard of the journal in which they are published. This paper attempts to demonstrate the limits of this view in the field of economics. According to our main findings, a publication frequently serves as a signal of high professional standards rather than as a source of information; referees and editors frequently reject good papers and accept bad ones; citation indices only partially balance the distortions deriving from the selection process; there are essential “entry costs” to the publication process. Moreover, financial interests of publishers may contradict scientific interests. As long as leading economists do not give voice to their dissatisfaction, there is no hope for any reform of the selection process.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document