[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/eecrev/v111y2019icp360-379.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Collusion and bargaining in asymmetric Cournot duopoly—An experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Fischer, Christian
  • Normann, Hans-Theo
Abstract
In asymmetric dilemma games without side payments, players face involved cooperation and bargaining problems. The maximization of joint profits is implausible, players disagree on the collusive action, and the outcome is often inefficient. For the example of a Cournot duopoly with asymmetric cost, we investigate experimentally how players cooperate (collude implicitly and explicitly), if at all, in such games. In our treatments without communication, players fail to cooperate and essentially play the static Nash equilibrium (consistent with previous results). With communication, inefficient firms gain at the expense of efficient ones. When the role of the efficient firm is earned in a contest, the efficient firm earns higher profits than when this role is randomly allocated. Bargaining solutions do not satisfactorily predict outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Fischer, Christian & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2019. "Collusion and bargaining in asymmetric Cournot duopoly—An experiment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 360-379.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:eecrev:v:111:y:2019:i:c:p:360-379
    DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2018.10.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014292118301806
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.euroecorev.2018.10.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Keser, Claudia & Markstädter, Andreas & Schmidt, Martin, 2017. "Mandatory minimum contributions, heterogeneous endowments and voluntary public-good provision," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 101(C), pages 291-310.
    2. Schmalensee, Richard, 1987. "Competitive advantage and collusive optima," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 5(4), pages 351-367.
    3. David J. Cooper & Kai-Uwe K?hn, 2014. "Communication, Renegotiation, and the Scope for Collusion," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 6(2), pages 247-278, May.
    4. Ernst Fehr & Klaus M. Schmidt, 1999. "A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 114(3), pages 817-868.
    5. Martin Beckenkamp & Heike Hennig-Schmidt & Frank P. Maier-Rigaud, 2007. "Cooperation in Symmetric and Asymmetric Prisoner's Dilemma Games," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2006_25, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    6. A. Colin Cameron & Jonah B. Gelbach & Douglas L. Miller, 2008. "Bootstrap-Based Improvements for Inference with Clustered Errors," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 90(3), pages 414-427, August.
    7. Conley, John P. & Wilkie, Simon, 1991. "The bargaining problem without convexity : Extending the egalitarian and Kalai-Smorodinsky solutions," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 36(4), pages 365-369, August.
    8. Huck, Steffen & Normann, Hans-Theo & Oechssler, Jorg, 2004. "Two are few and four are many: number effects in experimental oligopolies," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 435-446, April.
    9. Kalai, Ehud & Smorodinsky, Meir, 1975. "Other Solutions to Nash's Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 43(3), pages 513-518, May.
    10. Gneezy, Uri & Guth, Werner, 2003. "On competing rewards standards--an experimental study of ultimatum bargaining," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 599-607.
    11. Ben Greiner, 2015. "Subject pool recruitment procedures: organizing experiments with ORSEE," Journal of the Economic Science Association, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 1(1), pages 114-125, July.
    12. Jason Shachat & J. Todd Swarthout, 2013. "Auctioning the Right to Play Ultimatum Games and the Impact on Equilibrium Selection," Games, MDPI, vol. 4(4), pages 1-16, November.
    13. Ola Andersson & Erik Wengström, 2007. "Do Antitrust Laws Facilitate Collusion? Experimental Evidence on Costly Communication in Duopolies," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 109(2), pages 321-339, June.
    14. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(1), pages 38-55, January.
    15. Oxoby, Robert J. & Spraggon, John, 2008. "Mine and yours: Property rights in dictator games," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 703-713, March.
    16. Alexander W. Cappelen & Astri Drange Hole & Erik Ø Sørensen & Bertil Tungodden, 2007. "The Pluralism of Fairness Ideals: An Experimental Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 97(3), pages 818-827, June.
    17. Abreu, Dilip, 1988. "On the Theory of Infinitely Repeated Games with Discounting," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(2), pages 383-396, March.
    18. Andre Hofmeyr & Justine Burns & Martine Visser, 2007. "Income Inequality, Reciprocity And Public Good Provision: An Experimental Analysis," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 75(3), pages 508-520, September.
    19. Bos, Iwan & Davies, Stephen & Harrington, Joseph E. & Ormosi, Peter L., 2018. "Does enforcement deter cartels? A tale of two tails," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 372-405.
    20. Nash, John, 1950. "The Bargaining Problem," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 18(2), pages 155-162, April.
    21. Simon Gächter & Arno Riedl, 2005. "Moral Property Rights in Bargaining with Infeasible Claims," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 51(2), pages 249-263, February.
    22. Davies, Stephen & Olczak, Matthew & Coles, Heather, 2011. "Tacit collusion, firm asymmetries and numbers: Evidence from EC merger cases," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 221-231, March.
    23. Miguel Fonseca & Steffen Huck & Hans-Theo Normann, 2005. "Playing Cournot although they shouldn’t," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 25(3), pages 669-677, April.
    24. Hans-Theo Normann & Till Requate & Israel Waichman, 2014. "Do short-term laboratory experiments provide valid descriptions of long-term economic interactions? A study of Cournot markets," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 17(3), pages 371-390, September.
    25. MiguelA. Fonseca & Hans-Theo Normann, 2008. "Mergers, Asymmetries and Collusion: Experimental Evidence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(527), pages 387-400, March.
    26. Charles F. Mason & Owen R. Phillips, 1997. "Information And Cost Asymmetry In Experimental Duopoly Markets," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 79(2), pages 290-299, May.
    27. Axel Ockenfels & Gary E. Bolton, 2000. "ERC: A Theory of Equity, Reciprocity, and Competition," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 166-193, March.
    28. Mason, Charles F & Phillips, Owen R & Nowell, Clifford, 1992. "Duopoly Behavior in Asymmetric Markets: An Experimental Evaluation," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 74(4), pages 662-670, November.
    29. Maria Bigoni & Sven-Olof Fridolfsson & Chloé Le Coq & Giancarlo Spagnolo, 2012. "fines, leniency, and rewards in antitrust," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(2), pages 368-390, June.
    30. James Konow, 2000. "Fair Shares: Accountability and Cognitive Dissonance in Allocation Decisions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1072-1091, September.
    31. Hoffman, Elizabeth & McCabe, Kevin & Smith, Vernon L, 1996. "Social Distance and Other-Regarding Behavior in Dictator Games," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(3), pages 653-660, June.
    32. Argenton, Cédric & Müller, Wieland, 2012. "Collusion in experimental Bertrand duopolies with convex costs: The role of cost asymmetry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 508-517.
    33. Moellers, Claudia & Normann, Hans-Theo & Snyder, Christopher M., 2017. "Communication in vertical markets: Experimental evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 214-258.
    34. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    35. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, April.
    36. Normann, Hans-Theo & Tan, Elaine S., 2013. "Effects of different cartel policies: Evidence from the German power-cable industry," DICE Discussion Papers 108, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    37. Reinhard Selten & Michael Mitzkewitz & Gerald R. Uhlich, 1997. "Duopoly Strategies Programmed by Experienced Players," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 517-556, May.
    38. Keser, Claudia & Markstädter, Andreas & Schmidt, Martin & Schnitzler, Cornelius, 2014. "Social costs of inequality: Heterogeneous endowments in public-good experiments," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 217, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    39. Gary Charness & David Masclet & Marie Claire Villeval, 2014. "The Dark Side of Competition for Status (preprint)," Working Papers halshs-01090241, HAL.
    40. Harrington, Joseph E. & Hernan Gonzalez, Roberto & Kujal, Praveen, 2016. "The relative efficacy of price announcements and express communication for collusion: Experimental findings," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 251-264.
    41. James C. Cox & Elinor Ostrom & Vjollca Sadiraj & James M. Walker, 2013. "Provision versus Appropriation in Symmetric and Asymmetric Social Dilemmas," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 79(3), pages 496-512, January.
    42. Fonseca, Miguel A. & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2012. "Explicit vs. tacit collusion—The impact of communication in oligopoly experiments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1759-1772.
    43. Conley, John P. & Wilkie, Simon, 1996. "An Extension of the Nash Bargaining Solution to Nonconvex Problems," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 26-38, March.
    44. Ivaldi, Marc & Jullien, Bruno & Rey, Patrick & Seabright, Paul & Tirole, Jean, 2003. "The Economics of Tacit Collusion," IDEI Working Papers 186, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    45. Kagel, John H. & Kim, Chung & Moser, Donald, 1996. "Fairness in Ultimatum Games with Asymmetric Information and Asymmetric Payoffs," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 100-110, March.
    46. George Symeonidis, 2003. "In Which Industries is Collusion More Likely? Evidence from the UK," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 45-74, March.
    47. Fahr, Rene & Irlenbusch, Bernd, 2000. "Fairness as a constraint on trust in reciprocity: earned property rights in a reciprocal exchange experiment," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 66(3), pages 275-282, March.
    48. Jeroen Hinloopen & Adriaan R. Soetevent, 2008. "Laboratory evidence on the effectiveness of corporate leniency programs," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 607-616, June.
    49. Daniel Houser & Erte Xiao, 2011. "Classification of natural language messages using a coordination game," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Martin, Simon & Rasch, Alexander, 2024. "Demand forecasting, signal precision, and collusion with hidden actions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    2. Maximilian Andres & Lisa Bruttel & Jana Friedrichsen, 2020. "Choosing between explicit cartel formation and tacit collusion – An experiment," CEPA Discussion Papers 19, Center for Economic Policy Analysis.
    3. Andreas Freitag & Catherine Roux & Christian Thöni, 2021. "Communication And Market Sharing: An Experiment On The Exchange Of Soft And Hard Information," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 62(1), pages 175-198, February.
    4. Andres, Maximilian & Bruttel, Lisa & Friedrichsen, Jana, 2023. "How communication makes the difference between a cartel and tacit collusion: A machine learning approach," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    5. Ismail Saglam, 2020. "Bargaining over collusion: the threat of supply function versus Cournot competition under demand uncertainty and cost asymmetry," The Japanese Economic Review, Springer, vol. 71(4), pages 671-693, October.
    6. Thomas Loots & Arnoud V. den Boer, 2023. "Data‐driven collusion and competition in a pricing duopoly with multinomial logit demand," Production and Operations Management, Production and Operations Management Society, vol. 32(4), pages 1169-1186, April.
    7. Maximilian Andres, 2023. "Communication in the Infinitely Repeated Prisoner's Dilemma: Theory and Experiments," Papers 2304.12297, arXiv.org.
    8. Saglam, Ismail, 2018. "Bargaining over Collusion Profits under Cost Asymmetry and Demand Uncertainty," MPRA Paper 84007, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Argenton, Cédric & Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Müller, Wieland, 2024. "Cournot meets Bayes-Nash: A discontinuity in behavior in finitely repeated duopoly games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-12.
    10. Feltovich, Nick, 2019. "Is earned bargaining power more fully exploited?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 152-180.
    11. Axel Gautier & Ashwin Ittoo & Pieter Cleynenbreugel, 2020. "AI algorithms, price discrimination and collusion: a technological, economic and legal perspective," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 50(3), pages 405-435, December.
    12. Gerlach, Heiko & Li, Junqian, 2024. "Collusion in the presence of antitrust prosecution: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 222(C), pages 427-445.
    13. Benjamin Wegener, 2021. "How to Analyze Communication Data from Laboratory Experiments Without Being a Machine Learning Specialist," Journal of Economics and Behavioral Studies, AMH International, vol. 13(1), pages 32-56.
    14. Benndorf, Volker & Kübler, Dorothea & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2022. "Behavioral forces driving information unraveling," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2022-206, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    15. Neelanjan Sen & Priyansh Minocha & Arghya Dutta, 2023. "Technology licensing and collusion," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 19(3), pages 694-752, September.
    16. Andres, Maximilian & Bruttel, Lisa & Friedrichsen, Jana, 2021. "How do sanctions work? The choice between cartel formation and tacit collusion," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242372, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    17. Nobuyuki Hanaki & Ali I. Ozkes, 2023. "Strategic environment effect and communication," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 26(3), pages 588-621, July.
    18. Tebbe, Eva & Wegener, Benjamin, 2022. "Is natural language processing the cheap charlie of analyzing cheap talk? A horse race between classifiers on experimental communication data," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    19. Benndorf, Volker & Kübler, Dorothea & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2023. "Behavioral forces driving information unraveling," Discussion Papers, Research Unit: Market Behavior SP II 2023-207, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    20. Ma, Mingye & Riener, Gerhard & Xu, Youzong, 2024. "Evaluating Yourself and Your Peers," IZA Discussion Papers 17267, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    21. Lisa Bruttel & Maximilian Andres, 2024. "Communicating Cartel Intentions," CEPA Discussion Papers 77, Center for Economic Policy Analysis.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Feltovich, Nick, 2019. "Is earned bargaining power more fully exploited?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 152-180.
    2. Harrington, Joseph E. & Hernan Gonzalez, Roberto & Kujal, Praveen, 2016. "The relative efficacy of price announcements and express communication for collusion: Experimental findings," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 251-264.
    3. Dijkstra, Peter T. & Haan, Marco A. & Mulder, Machiel, 2017. "Industry structure and collusion with uniform yardstick competition: Theory and experiments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 1-33.
    4. Darai, D. & Roux, C. & Schneider, F., 2019. "Mergers, Mavericks, and Tacit Collusion," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1984, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    5. Andres, Maximilian & Bruttel, Lisa & Friedrichsen, Jana, 2023. "How communication makes the difference between a cartel and tacit collusion: A machine learning approach," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    6. Andres, Maximilian & Bruttel, Lisa & Friedrichsen, Jana, 2021. "How do sanctions work? The choice between cartel formation and tacit collusion," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242372, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    7. Grundmann, Susanna, 2020. "Do just deserts and competition shape patterns of cheating?," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Volkswirtschaftliche Reihe V-79-20, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    8. Jan Potters & Sigrid Suetens, 2013. "Oligopoly Experiments In The Current Millennium," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 439-460, July.
    9. Maximilian Andres & Lisa Bruttel & Jana Friedrichsen, 2020. "Choosing between explicit cartel formation and tacit collusion – An experiment," CEPA Discussion Papers 19, Center for Economic Policy Analysis.
    10. Chowdhury, Subhasish M. & Crede, Carsten J., 2020. "Post-cartel tacit collusion: Determinants, consequences, and prevention," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    11. Fabio Galeotti & Maria Montero & Anders Poulsen, 2022. "The Attraction and Compromise Effects in Bargaining: Experimental Evidence," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(4), pages 2987-3007, April.
    12. Bodnar, Olivia & Fremerey, Melinda & Normann, Hans-Theo & Schad, Jannika Leonie, 2021. "The effects of private damage claims on cartel activity: Experimental evidence," DICE Discussion Papers 315, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE), revised 2021.
    13. Argenton, Cédric & Ivanova-Stenzel, Radosveta & Müller, Wieland, 2024. "Cournot meets Bayes-Nash: A discontinuity in behavior in finitely repeated duopoly games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 144(C), pages 1-12.
    14. Timothy Flannery & Siyu Wang, 2023. "Is the “smoke‐filled room” necessary? An experimental study of the effect of communication networks on collusion," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 89(4), pages 1056-1077, April.
    15. Benndorf, Volker & Odenkirchen, Johannes, 2021. "An experiment on partial cross-ownership in oligopolistic markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    16. Andreas Freitag & Catherine Roux & Christian Thöni, 2021. "Communication And Market Sharing: An Experiment On The Exchange Of Soft And Hard Information," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 62(1), pages 175-198, February.
    17. Moellers, Claudia & Normann, Hans-Theo & Snyder, Christopher M., 2017. "Communication in vertical markets: Experimental evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 214-258.
    18. Georg Clemens & Holger A. Rau, 2022. "Either with us or against us: experimental evidence on partial cartels," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 93(2), pages 237-257, September.
    19. Dijkstra, Peter T., 2015. "Price leadership and unequal market sharing: Collusion in experimental markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 80-97.
    20. Ubeda, Paloma, 2014. "The consistency of fairness rules: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 88-100.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Asymmetries; Bargaining; Cartels; Communication; Cournot; Earned role; Experiments;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory
    • C9 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments
    • L4 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies
    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:eecrev:v:111:y:2019:i:c:p:360-379. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/eer .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.