Kangsik Choi

Price and Quantity Competition in a Unionised Mixed Duopoly: The Cases of Substitutes and Complements

We investigate a differentiated mixed duopoly in which private and public firms can choose to strategically set prices or quantities when unions are present. For the case of a unionised mixed duopoly, there exists a dominant strategy only for the public firm that chooses Bertrand competition irrespective of whether the goods are substitutes or complements; there is no dominant strategy for a private firm. Thus, we show that regardless of the nature of goods, social welfare under Bertrand competition is always determined in equilibrium, wherein Bertrand competition entails higher social welfare than Cournot competition. Moreover, our main results hold irrespective of the nature of goods, with the exception that when a sufficiently large parameter of complements is employed, the ranking of a private firms profit is not reversed, which is in contrast to the standard findings.

Port privatization under Cournot vs. Bertrand competition: a third-market approach

ABSTRACT By incorporating port competition into a third-market model consisting of two exporting firms and one importing country, we demonstrate the endogenous choice of port structures (i.e. privatization or public ownership) under either Bertrand or Cournot competition. In contrast to previous studies on port competition, we analyze the port strategy in view of all trading countries (i.e. importing country and exporting countries). We find that regardless of transport cost, the port ownership strategy alters according to exporting firm’s competition mode. Under Bertrand competition, the choice of port ownership structure depends on the degree of imperfect substitutability. However, under Cournot competition, all trading countries choose same ownership structures of each port. By comparing equilibrium of each competition mode, we show that welfare of exporting country under Cournot competition is higher than under Bertrand competition if goods are sufficiently substitutes. In contrast, importing country prefers Bertrand competition to Cournot competition when the competitive pressure is sufficiently high.

Strategic Budget Constraints in a Unionized Mixed Oligopoly

This paper considers the budget‐constraint problem where the government decides whether or not to impose a budget constraint on the public firm, assuming the public firm is less efficient than private firms. We find that imposing budget constraints on the public firm is the preferred choice because of the welfare‐improving effect. Our model suggests that the wage levels of the public firm can be lower or higher than those of private firms depending upon the degree of inefficiency. These results differ from Ishida and Matsushimas findings that in a unionized mixed duopoly, tight budget constraints can enhance social welfare when the public firm is as efficient as private firms.

First-Mover and Second-Mover Advantage in a Vertically Related Market

We consider the issue of first- and second-mover advantages in a vertically related market. First, we show that the standard conclusions about sequential-move games under Bertrand and Cournot competitions can change in the context of a vertically related market. This is because an upstream monopoly can control first- and second-mover advantages by adjusting input prices. Ultimately, the upstream firm can achieve optimal profits by removing the first-mover (second-mover) advantage under Cournot (Bertrand) competition. Moreover, the profit of the upstream firm and social welfare are equal between Cournot and Bertrand com- petition under both simultaneous- and sequential-move games in a vertically related market.

Boundaries of the Firm with Network Externalities

We examine that each manufacturer decides on whether or not to delegate to its retailer in the presence of network externalities. In this paper, we show a trade-off between competition and network size. Vertical separation has the advantage of softening a retailing competition, but has the disadvantage of downsizing a network size. On the other hand, vertical integration has advantage of increasing the network size, but has disadvantage of intensifying the retailing competition. In these circumstances, network effect and competition play important roles in equilibrium. Our conclusion differs sharply from the conventional results in two points. One is that it is a dominant strategy for each manufacturer to choose vertical integration if competition effect is overwhelmed by network effect. The other is that if network effect is strong, profits, consumer surplus, and social welfare are higher under vertical integration than separation.

A reappraisal of strategic trade policies with the endogenous mode of competition under vertical structures

ABSTRACT This paper examines the endogenous choice of competition mode with strategic export policies in vertically related markets when each upstream firm located in each country determines the terms of the two-part tariff contract by maximizing generalized Nash bargaining. We show that (i) choosing Cournot (Bertrand) competition is the dominant strategy for both downstream firms when goods are substitutes (complements), which leads Pareto superior regardless of the nature of goods under the optimal trade policies; (ii) irrespective of rival’s competition mode, the optimal trade policy is an export subsidy under Cournot competition and an export tax under Bertrand competition; and (iii) trade liberalization may give rise to changes of competition mode and increase of social welfare.

PRICE AND QUANTITY COMPETITION WITH ASYMMETRIC COSTS IN A MIXED DUOPOLY: A TECHNICAL NOTE: Price and Quantity Competition with Asymmetric Costs in a Mixed Duopoly

We consider a mixed duopoly in which private and public firms can choose to strategically set prices or quantities when the public firm is less efficient than the private firm. Thus, even with cost asymmetry, we obtain exactly the same result (i.e., Bertrand competition) of Matsumura and Ogawa (2012) if Singh and Vives’ (1984) assumption of positive primary outputs holds. However, compared to endogenous determination of the type of contract without cost asymmetry, our main finding is that in the wider range of cost asymmetry, different type(s) of equilibrium related to or not related to the limit‐pricing strategy of the private firm can be sustained. Thus, when considering an implication on privatization, we may overestimate the welfare gain of privatization because Cournot competition takes place after privatization even though cost asymmetry exists between firms. While the result of Matsumura and Ogawa (2012) holds true if the goods are complements, we find the novel results in the case of substitutes.

Strategic trade policies with first-mover and second-mover advantages in a vertical structure

ABSTRACT With strategic trade policies, we consider first- and second-mover advantages in a vertical structure given the two-part tariff contract (composed of the input price and the fixed fee) of an upstream firm, where a home and a foreign final-good firms export to a third-country market. We find that the upstream firms’ and governments’ preference orderings over sequential versus simultaneous play and over free trade versus a regime of subsidies contrast with early results in the strategic trade policy. Thus, the endogenous market structure is that (i) the potential leader chooses the Leader role with quantity strategies, and the equilibrium trade regime is unilateral subsidy regardless of the nature of goods; (ii) with price strategies, the potential leader chooses the simultaneous timing, and the equilibrium trade regime is bilateral taxes (free trade) when goods are substitutes (complements).

Bertrand vs. Cournot Competition with Upstream Firm Investment

This paper compares Bertrand and Cournot competition in a vertical structure in which the upstream firm sets the input price and makes R&D investments. We show that from the downstream firms’ point of view, Cournot competition has the advantage of a more monopolistic effect, leading to the setting of a higher price, but has the disadvantage of inducing a lower incentive for the upstream firm to invest. On the other hand, Bertrand competition has the advantage of providing a greater incentive for the upstream firm to invest but has the disadvantage of a more competitive effect, leading to the setting of a lower price. Our main findings are as follows. First, R&D investment level is greater under Bertrand competition than under Cournot competition. Second, from the standpoint of the upstream firm and industry, Bertrand competition is more efficient than Cournot competition. Third, from the standpoint of the downstream firms, Bertrand competition is more efficient than Cournot when investment is sufficiently efficient and products are sufficiently differentiated.

A Note on Bertrand and Cournot Competition in a Vertically Related Duopoly

We revisit the classic discussion on the endogenous choice of a price or a quantity contract in a vertically related duopoly with a monopolistic upstream firm. We show, from the perspective of the upstream firm, choosing the price contract is a dominant strategy regardless of the nature of goods. We also show, from the perspective of the downstream firms, that the ranking of profits between Cournot and Bertrand competition in Singh and Vives (1984) is reversed. Thus, in equilibrium, downstream firms face a prisoners’ dilemma regardless of the nature of goods.