Mutual forbearance as an extension of oligopoly theory

1984 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert M. Feinberg
Author(s):  
Louis Kaplow

Throughout the world, the rule against price fixing is competition law's most important and least controversial prohibition. Yet there is far less consensus than meets the eye on what constitutes price fixing, and prevalent understandings conflict with the teachings of oligopoly theory that supposedly underlie modern competition policy. This book offers a fresh, in-depth exploration of competition law's horizontal agreement requirement, presents a systematic analysis of how best to address the problem of coordinated oligopolistic price elevation, and compares the resulting direct approach to the orthodox prohibition. The book elaborates the relevant benefits and costs of potential solutions, investigates how coordinated price elevation is best detected in light of the error costs associated with different types of proof, and examines appropriate sanctions. Existing literature devotes remarkably little attention to these key subjects and instead concerns itself with limiting penalties to certain sorts of interfirm communications. Challenging conventional wisdom, the book shows how this circumscribed view is less well grounded in the statutes, principles, and precedents of competition law than is a more direct, functional proscription. More important, by comparison to the communications-based prohibition, the book explains how the direct approach targets situations that involve both greater social harm and less risk of chilling desirable behavior—and is also easier to apply.


1965 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 381-383 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Mann ◽  
Paul Haas ◽  
John Walgreen
Keyword(s):  

1993 ◽  
Vol 37 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 463-476 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xavier Vives
Keyword(s):  

2014 ◽  
Vol 2014 ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fang Wu ◽  
Junhai Ma

Although oligopoly theory is generally concerned with the single-product firm, what is true in the real word is that most of the firms offer multiproducts rather than single products in order to obtain cost-saving advantages, cater for the diversity of consumer tastes, and provide a barrier to entry. We develop a dynamical multiproduct Cournot duopoly model in discrete time, where each firm has an owner who delegates the output decision to a manager. The principle of decision-making is bounded rational. And each firm has a nonlinear total cost function due to the multiproduct framework. The Cournot Nash equilibrium and the local stability are investigated. The tangential bifurcation and intermittent chaos are reported by numerical simulations. The results show that high output adjustment speed can lead to output fluctuations which are characterized by phases of low volatility with small output changes and phases of high volatility with large output changes. The intermittent route to chaos of Flip bifurcation and another intermittent route of Flip bifurcation which contains Hopf bifurcation can exist in the system. The study can improve our understanding of intermittent chaos frequently observed in oligopoly economy.


2011 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Ponikvar ◽  
Maks Tajnikar

The aim of this paper is to identify factors that affect the pricing policy in Slovenian manufacturing firms in terms of the markup size and, most of all, to explicitly account for the possibility of differences in pricing procedures among manufacturing industries. Accordingly, the analysis of the dynamic panel is carried out on an industry-by-industry basis, allowing the coefficients on the markup determinants to vary across industries. We find that the oligopoly theory of markup determination for the most part holds for the manufacturing sector as a whole, although large variability in markup determinants exists across industries within the Slovenian manufacturing. Our main conclusion is that each industry should be investigated separately in detail in order to assess the precise role of markup factors in the markup-determination process.


2018 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 257-279 ◽  
Author(s):  
Burak Cem Konduk

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to explain how a multi-market firm develops the motivation to forbear from competition.Design/methodology/approachA two-way fixed effects model with Driscoll and Kraay standard errors investigates the research question with panel data collected from the US scheduled passenger airline industry.FindingsThe results demonstrate that although the interaction of multi-market contact with strategic similarity impairs a firm’s forbearance from competition, the same interaction promotes it as firm performance deteriorates, supporting the hypotheses.Research limitations/implicationsPerformance explains not only how forbearance emerges out of coincidental multi-market contact but also reconciles the mixed evidence for the impact of the two-way interaction between multi-market contact and strategic similarity on forbearance.Practical implicationsAntitrust authorities should pay more attention to low performing firms than to high performing firms in their investigations. Also, managers of multi-market firms should identify multi-market rivals with low performance as targets for the initiation of forbearance.Originality/valueThis study revises the mutual forbearance theory to align it with the accumulating empirical evidence that otherwise refutes its assumption and thereby improves theory’s descriptive and predictive power.


2021 ◽  
pp. 68-88
Author(s):  
A. E. Shastitko ◽  
K. A. Ionkina

The paper defines the features of the collective dominance institute in Russia as well as the relation between collective dominance and oligopoly in the spheres of law and economic theory. The article evaluates the grounds and consequences of the collective dominance legal norm application; it suggests an approach to examining the relation between effects and expected results of this legal norm application and outlines the potential ways to harmonize the best international practices of the collective dominance norm application with the existing economic standards of product market analysis for the purpose of competition law enforcement. Results of the oligopoly theory and the Russian version of collective dominance institution key elements comparison show: the collective dominance institution concept is inadequately applied to identify individual abuse of dominant position due to possible law enforcement errors. The Russian version of collective dominance institution reflects one fundamental tendency intrinsic to Russian antitrust: examined more closely, law enforcement, which is de jure aimed at protecting competition, appears to be economic regulation, which de facto can lead to competition restriction. One of the possible structural alternatives for the collective dominance institution reforming is based on presumption of the need to analyze the joint impact exerted by a group of undertakings on the market.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document