Advertisement

Effects of Integration with a Consumer-Friendly Firm in a Cournot Duopoly

  • Mariel Leal
  • Arturo García
  • Sang-Ho LeeEmail author
Article
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

We study the effects of uniting two separated markets, each monopolized by a firm, into a single integrated duopoly market. When one of the firms is consumer-friendly, we examine certain conditions under which integration turns out to be beneficial or detrimental to the actors involved. We show that consumers in the local market which the consumer-friendly firm is from may have their surplus reduced unless the firm has a cost disadvantage. We also find conditions under which the welfare of one market or the other can be reduced, even that of both simultaneously. Finally, we show that (i) it would be better that the firm is friendly only with the consumers of its original market and not with those of the global market and (ii) more competition in the presence of a consumer-friendly firm might not be beneficial to the local society.

Keywords

Integration Consumer-friendly firm Technical advantage Asymmetric Cournot duopoly 

JEL Classification

L13 L31 

Notes

References

  1. Amir R, Jin JY, Tröge M (2017) Free trade versus autarky under asymmetric cournot oligopoly. Rev Int Econ 25(1):98–107.  https://doi.org/10.1111/roie.12257 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bárcena-Ruiz JC, Garzón MB (2005) International trade and strategic privatization. Rev Development Econ 9 (4):502–513.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9361.2005.00290.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chang YM, Chen HY, Wang LFS, Wu SJ (2014) Corporate social responsibility and international competition: a welfare analysis. Rev Int Econ 22 (3):625–638.  https://doi.org/10.1111/roie.12117 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chirco A, Colombo C, Scrimitore M (2013) Quantity competition, endogenous motives and behavioral heterogeneity. Theory and Decision 74(1):55–74.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-012-9341-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cho S, Lee SH (2017) Subsidization policy on the social enterprise for the underprivileged. Korean Econ Rev 33(1):153–178Google Scholar
  6. Cordella T (1993) Trade liberalization and oligopolistic industries: a welfare appraisal. Recherches Économiques de Louvain / Louvain Economic Review 59(3):355–363Google Scholar
  7. Cremer H, Marchand M, Thisse JF (1991) Mixed oligopoly with differentiated products. Int J Indus Org 9(1):43–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-7187(91)90004-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crifo P, Forget V (2015) The economics of corporate social responsibility: a firm-level perspective survey. J Econ Surveys 29(1):112–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dadpay A, Heywood JS (2006) Mixed oligopoly in a single international market. Australian Econ Papers 45(4):269–280.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8454.2006.00292.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Fraja G, Delbono F (1989) Alternative strategies of a public enterprise in oligopoly. Oxford Econ Papers 41(1):302–311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dong B, Yuan L (2010) The loss from trade under international cournot oligopoly with cost asymmetry. Rev Int Econ 18(5):818–831.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9396.2010.00894.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eckel C, Neary J (2010) Multi-product firms and flexible manufacturing in the global economy. Rev Econ Studies 77(1):188–217.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-937X.2009.00573.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fanti L, Buccella D (2019) Managerial delegation games and corporate social responsibility. Managerial and Decision Economics Article in Press,  https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.3031
  14. Flores D, García A (2016) On the output and welfare effects of a non-profit firm in a mixed duopoly: a generalization. Econ Syst 40(4):631–637.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2016.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garcia A, Leal M, Lee SH (2018) Social responsibility in a bilateral monopoly with r & d. Econ Bulletin 38(3):1467–1475Google Scholar
  16. Garcia A, Leal M, Lee SH (2019a) Cooperation with a multiproduct corporation in a strategic managerial delegation. Managerial and Decision Economics Article in PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Garcia A, Leal M, Lee SH (2019b) Endogenous timing with a socially responsible firm. Korean Econ Rev 35(2):345–370Google Scholar
  18. Goering G (2007) The strategic use of managerial incentives in a non-profit firm mixed duopoly. Managerial and Decision Economics 28 (2):83–91.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.1307 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Harris R, Wiens E (1980) Government enterprise: an instrument for the internal regulation of industry. Canadian J Econ 13(1):125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kameda H, Ui T (2012) Effects of symmetry on globalizing separated monopolies to a nash-cournot oligopoly. Int Game Theory Rev 14(2):1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim SL, Lee SH, Matsumura T (2019) Corporate social responsibility and privatization policy in a mixed oligopoly. J Econ 128(1):67–89.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00712-018-00651-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kitzmueller M, Shimshack J (2012) Economic perspectives on corporate social responsibility. J Econ Lit 50(1):51–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Königstein M, Müller W (2001) Why firms should care for customers. Econ Lett 72(1):47–52.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00400-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kopel M (2015) Price and quantity contracts in a mixed duopoly with a socially concerned firm. Managerial and Decision Economics 36(8):559–566.  https://doi.org/10.1002/mde.2707, mDE-14-0009.R1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kopel M, Brand B (2012) Socially responsible firms and endogenous choice of strategic incentives. Econ Modelling 29(3):982–989.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2012.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kopel M, Lamantia F, Szidarovszky F (2014) Evolutionary competition in a mixed market with socially concerned firms. J Econ Dynamics Control 48:394–409.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jedc.2014.06.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lambertini L (2017) An economic theory of managerial firms. Routledge, EvanstonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lambertini L, Tampieri A (2015) Incentives, performance and desirability of socially responsible firms in a cournot oligopoly. Economic Modelling 50:40–48.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2015.05.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Leal M, Garcia A, Lee SH (2018) The timing of environmental tax policy with a consumer-friendly firm. Hitotsubashi J Econ 59(1):25–43Google Scholar
  30. Lee SH, Xu L, Chen Z (2013) Competitive privatization and tariff policies in an international mixed duopoly. The Manchester School 81(5):763–779.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9957.2012.02309.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Liu CC, Wang L, Lee SH (2015) Strategic environmental corporate social responsibility in a differentiated duopoly market. Econ Lett 129:108–111.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2015.02.027 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Markusen JR (1981) Trade and the gains from trade with imperfect competition. J Int Econ 11(4):531–551.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1996(81)90033-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Matsumura T (1998) Partial privatization in mixed duopoly. J Public Econ 70 (3):473–483CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Matsumura T, Ogawa A (2014) Corporate social responsibility or payoff asymmetry? A study of an endogenous timing game. Southern Econ J 81(2):457–473.  https://doi.org/10.4284/0038-4038-2012.182 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McWilliams A, Siegel D (2001) Corporate social responsibility: a theory of the firm perspective. The Academy of Management Review 26(1):117–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Porter ME, Kramer MR (2006) Strategy & society: the link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harvard Business Review 84(12):78–92Google Scholar
  37. Schreck P (2011) Reviewing the business case for corporate social responsibility: new evidence and analysis. Journal of Business Ethics 103(2):167–188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Wang LFS, Wang YC, Zhao L (2012) Tariff policy and welfare in an international duopoly with consumer-friendly initiative. Bulletin Econ Res 64(1):56–64.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8586.2010.00382.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Xu L, Lee SH (2015) Strategic privatization with tariffs and environmental taxes in an international mixed duopoly. Hitotsubashi J Econ 56(1):135–154Google Scholar
  40. Xu L, Lee SH (2019) Tariffs and privatization policy in a bilateral trade with corporate social responsibility. Economic Modelling 80:339–351.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2018.11.020 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Xu L, Lee SH, Wang LF (2016) Free trade agreements and privatization policy with an excess burden of taxation. Japan and the World Economy 37-38:55–64.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.japwor.2016.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Engineering and SciencesTecnologico de MonterreyMonterreyMexico
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsChonnam National UniversityGwangjuSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations