Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T14:09:10.837Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Threat of Exit as a Source of Bargaining Power*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2016

Claire Chambolle
Affiliation:
INRA (UR 1303 ALISS, 94205 Ivry-sur-Seine, France), and Ecole Polytechnique (Department of Economics,91128 Palaiseau, France); mail: [email protected]
Get access

Résumé

Cet article analyse un jeu simple à deux périodes dans lequel deux producteurs farbriquant un bien homogène se font concurrence pour fournir un distributeur. Nous montrons que si les producteurs sont vulnérables (c'est-à-dire s'ils sont exclus du marché en cas d'une commande insuffisante en première période), ils peuvent alors exploiter cette menace de banqueroute et s'approprier ainsi tout le profit de l'industrie en première période. En effet, le distributeur sera prêt à accepter de payer un prix fort aux producteurs pour éviter leur faillite et maintenir ainsi une concurrence en amont pour la seconde période. Ce résultat reste valable dans le cas d'une structure de marché différente ou de contrats verticaux plus élaborés.

Summary

Summary

This article analyzes a simple two-period model where two homogenous manufacturers compete to supply a monopolist retailer. We show that if manufacturers are vulnerable (i.e if they are likely to exit the market in case of insufficient orders in the first period), they may exploit their threat of exit to capture the whole first period industry profit. Indeed, the retailer will accept to pay the high price to the manufacturers in order to secure upstream competition in the second period. Results are robust under different market structures or contract types.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de recherches économiques et sociales 2009 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We thank Roman Inderst, Patrick Rey, Thibaud Vergé, and seminars participants at EARIE 2005 and EEA 2006. The title of a previous version of this article was: “The Reciprocal Producer's Incentives to Prey and Retailer's Buyer Power”

References

Allain, M-L. (2002) “The Balance of Power Between Producers and Retailers : a Dif-ferentiation Model”, Louvain Economic Review, 68 (3), 359370.Google Scholar
Biglaiser, G. and De Graba, P. (2001) “Downstream Integration by a Bottleneck Input Supplier whose Regulated Wholesale Prices are Above Costs”, The RAND Journal of Economics, 32, 302315.Google Scholar
Biglaiser, G. and Vettas, N. (2004) “Dynamic Price Competition with Capacity Con-straints and Strategic Buyers”, CEPR Discussion Papers, 4315.Google Scholar
Bolton, P. and Scharfstein, D. (1990) “A Theory of Prédation Based on Agency Problems in Financial Contracting”, American Economic Review, 80(1): 93106.Google Scholar
Chambolle, C. and Villas-Boas, S. (2007) “Buyer Power through Producer’s Differen-tiation”, Department of Agricultural & Resource Economics, UCB, CUDARE Working Paper, 1042.Google Scholar
Dobson, P. and Waterson, P. (1999), “Retailer power: recent developments and policy implications”, Economic Policy, April 1999, p. 135162.Google Scholar
Dobson, P. and Waterson, P. (1997), “Countervailing power and consumer prices”, The Economic Journal, 107, p. 418430.Google Scholar
Holström, B. and Tiróle, J. (1997), “Financial intermediation, loanable funds and the real sector”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 62, p. 663691.Google Scholar
Inderst, R. and Mazzarotto, N. (2006), “Buyer Power in Distribution”, Manuscript pre-pared for the ABA Antitrust Section Handbook, Issues in Competition Law and Policy (W.D. Collins, (in preparation).Google Scholar
Inderst, R. and Wey, C. (2007), “Buyer Power and Supplier Incentives”, European Economic Review, Vol. 51, p. 647667.Google Scholar
Lewis, T.R and Yildirim, H. (2002), “Managing Dynamic Competition”, The American Economic Review, 92, 4, p. 779797.Google Scholar
OFT - Office of Fair Trading (2005), “Ex-post Evaluation of Mergers”, Office of Fair Trading UK, Report OFT767, 114 pages.Google Scholar
Rey, P. and Tirole, J. (2007), “A primer on foreclosure”, Handbook of Industrial Orga-nization, Armstrong, Mark and Porter, Rob (eds), North Holland, Vol. 3, p. 21452220.Google Scholar