scholarly journals Market Power in Output and Emissions Trading

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.

2013 ◽  
Vol 64 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johanna Reichenbach ◽  
Till Requate

AbstractEmissions trading has been established as an important instrument of pollution control in many world regions. However concerns have been raised whether or not emission-trading schemes may distort competition either on the permit market itself or on related output markets. In this paper we review tradable emission-allowance schemes with special reference to anti-competitive effects. Such distortions may be caused by large firms exercising market power on the allowance market by holding down supply or suppressing demand in order to manipulate prices to their advantage. Firms may also try to abuse the allowance market to put other firms, with whom they compete on the output market, at a competitive disadvantage. Further distortions and abuses may be caused by special or ill-defined rules on the allowance market or other markets. In this paper we survey theoretical insights on potential anti-comptitive effects of emissions trading and also provide some empirical evidence for market power abuses on auctioned and grandfathered allowance markets with a particular focus on the (alleged) allowance market abuse by power utilities in Germany and California.


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):  
Marten Graubner ◽  
Igor Ostapchuk ◽  
Taras Gagalyuk

Abstract With the emergence of large, horizontally integrated farm enterprises especially in Eastern European countries, the question arises whether these agroholdings exercise market power in (local) land markets. Using a theoretical framework of spatial competition that accounts for the presence of multi-farm agroholdings, we derive equilibrium prices under alternative spatial competition settings. Based on the investigation of Ukrainian farms, we provide theoretical explanations and empirical support for farms affiliated with an agroholding possessing (ceteris paribus) more land and setting higher land rental prices compared to independent farms. The results indicate that agroholdings may act as price leaders in local land markets.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document