ビジネスエコノミクス

Business Economics (A)
Researcher training course
8th week
Yuji Honjo
Faculty of Commerce
Chuo University
Contents

Theme


Keyword



The Dynamics of Pricing Rivalry
Fork Theorem
Cooperative pricing
Discussions

Do you think what is the most important for the
sustainability of cooperative pricing?
2
Coordination

Cooperative pricing
If the discount rate i is not too large, then the cooperative
outcome will be sustainable.
 Fork theorem


Coordination problem
The fork theorem implies that cooperative pricing
behavior is a possible outcome in an oligopolistic industry.
 But there is no guarantee that cooperative pricing will
emerge.
 Achieving cooperative pricing when other, less attractive
outcomes are possible is a coordination problem.

3
(Continued)
cf. Collusive agreement


A collusive agreement (i.e., cartel) is illegal in most
countries.
Corporate pricing != Collusive agreement
Coordination without an agreement



Achieving coordination without an agreement or overt
communication is far more difficult.
To succeed, cooperation must be a focal point for all the
firms.
Do focal points, in practice, emerge in economic or social
interactions?
4
cf. Experiment in the Class

Revised version of a game “Divide the Cities”






First, you have the score of 16.
The total number of cities is 16.
You cannot ask others whether the city is chosen (no
collusive agreement).
When you choose the city others choose, the score is -1.
When any of you does not choose the city, the score is -1.
If the total score is over 10, I will treat you to lunch.
5
Exercise 1

16 cities








Atlanta
Baltimore
Boston
Chicago
Detroit
Florida
Houston
Honolulu








Indianapolis
Los Angels
New York
Philadelphia
Phoenix
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
6
Exercise 2

16 cities








Bangkok
Beijing
Berlin
Delhi
Hong Kong
Kuala Lumpur
London
Milan








Moscow
Osaka
Paris
Seoul
Singapore
Shanghai
Sydney
Tokyo
7
Why Is Tit-for-Tat So Compelling?

Is Tit-for-Tat the only strategy?


Answer  No!
Grim Trigger Strategy
If any firm deviates from the cooperating price, the others
will drop its price to marginal cost in the next period and
keep it there forever.
 This strategy gives an incentive to keep the firms from
undercutting their prices.
 But, in practice, the tit-for-tat strategy is more effective.
Why?

8
(Continued)

Reasons for firms to choose the tit-for-tat strategy
A firm can easily signal to its rivals that it is following titfor-tat.
cf. The trigger strategy may provide signal for simple price
competition when its rivals cannot understand the trigger.
 The Evolution of Cooperation by Axelrod




Niceness
Provocability
Forgiveness
9
(Continued)

Misreads
A firm mistakenly believes a competitor is charging one
price when it is really charging another, or
 A firm misunderstands the reasons for a competitor’s
pricing decision
Cf. Dixit and Nalebuff’s (1991) argument


When misreads are possible, pricing strategies that are less
provocable and more forgiving than tit-for-tat are desirable.
10
How Market Structure Affects the Sustainability of
Cooperative Pricing

Cooperative Pricing


Market structure conditions influence the attainment of
cooperative pricing.
Market structure conditions




Market concentration
Structural conditions that affect reaction speeds and
detection lags
Asymmetries among firms
Price sensitivity of buyers
11
Market Concentration and the Sustainability of
Cooperative Pricing

Market Concentration



The benefit-cost ratio in equation (8.1) goes up as the
number of firms goes down.
The more concentrated the market, the larger the benefits
from cooperation.
Coordinating on a particular focal strategy is likely to be
easier for less firms there are compete against one another
in the market.
12
Reaction Speed, Detection Lags, and the
Sustainability of Cooperative Pricing

Reaction Speed


If price cuts can be matched instantly, cooperative pricing
will always be sustainable.
A firm may be unable to react quickly to its
competitors’ pricing moves because of




Lags in detecting competitors’ price
Infrequently interactions with competitors
Ambiguous in identifying which firm among a group of
firms in a market is cutting price
Difficulties distinguishing drops in volume due to price
cutting by rivals from drops in volume due to
unanticipated decreases in market demand
13
(Continued)

Important factors for cooperative pricing

Lumpiness of orders


Information about sales transactions


While some prices are publicly posted, other prices are secret.
The number of buyers


Lumpy orders reduce the frequency of competitive interactions between
firms.
It is easier to detect deviations from cooperative pricing when each firm
sells to many small buyers than when each sells to a few large buyers.
Volatility of demand and cost conditions

Price cutting is harder to detect when market demand conditions are
volatile.
14
Asymmetries among Firms and the Sustainability
of Cooperative Pricing

Asymmetries among Firms
Firms are not identical
 Firms have different costs.
 No single focal price
 Cooperative pricing – difficult


Two related reasons for the difficulty


Large firms benefit more from the move toward
cooperative pricing than does small firms.
Small firms anticipate that large firms have weak
incentives to punish a small firm that undercuts its price.
15
Case: Dot Matrix Printer in South
Africa

Epson vs. Panasonic
Epson – Leader firm in South Africa
 Epson’s price: Rand 1,000
 Panasonic’s price: Rand 950 (5% discount)
 Capture a fraction α of demand


Epson’s profit



if Epson matches Panasonic’s price of Rand 950
(950 – 500) * 1,000 = 450,00
if Epson does not match it
(1,000 – 500) * 1,000 * (1 – α) = 500,00 (1 – α)
If α < 0.01 (Epson expects to lose less than 10 percent of its business
to Panasonic), then not matching is optimal.
16
(Continued)

Price umbrella

By allowing Panasonic to sell printers at a lower price
than it charges, Epson would be extending a price
umbrella to Panasonic.
Price umbrella is optimal when

((1 – β) P – C) * Q < (P – C) * Q * (1 – α)
– βP < – α (P – C)
α < β/ PCM


The price cut, β, is relatively large, but the price cutter
does not steal much market share form the larger firm
The margins in the industry is relatively small
17
Market Structure and the Sustainability of
Cooperative Pricing
(See Table 8.1.)
18
Facilitating Practices

Firms themselves can facilitate cooperative pricing
by
Price leadership
 Advance announcement of price charges
 Most favored customer clauses
 Uniform delivered pricing
 These practice either facilitate coordination among firms
or diminish their incentives to cut price.

19
Quality Competition

Quality


Another factor drives consumer decision and firm
strategies.
Quality choice in competitive markets
Information  Important
cf. Lemmon market

 Consumers

cannot gauge the quality of the product.
Quality choices of sellers with market power


Marginal cost of increasing quality
Marginal benefit of improving quality
20