Advertisement

Review of Industrial Organization

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 161–177 | Cite as

A Welfare Analysis of Location Space Constraints with Vertically Separated Sellers

Article

Abstract

This paper studies the welfare effects of location space constraints when the duopoly sellers are vertically separated. As the downstream firms respond to higher input prices by locating further away from the center of the market, constraining them to locate within the linear city allows the upstream manufacturers better to exploit the downstream industry. This leads to higher final good prices and lower consumer welfare (despite the savings on transportation). This result – which is robust to the inclusion of R&D decisions – is in sharp contrast to the case in which the sellers are vertically integrated. Also different, the incentive to invest in cost-reducing R&D is always insufficient compared with the social optimum. Our results thus suggest the importance of taking into account the vertical market structure in formulating zoning (product standard) and R&D policies.

Keywords

Location constraint R&D Vertical separation 

JEL Classification

L1 R3 D4 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are indebted to the editor, Lawrence J. White, for many valuable comments and suggestions. We also wish to thank two anonymous referees and participants at the Industrial Organization Theory Workshop at Shandong University and the Industrial Organization and International Trade Workshop at Jinan University for helpful comments. Financial support from the National Science Foundation of China (71603083, 71603283) is gratefully acknowledged. The usual disclaimers apply.

References

  1. Bárcena-Ruiz, J. C., & Casado-Izaga, F. J. (2014). Zoning under spatial price discrimination. Economic Inquiry, 52(2), 659–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bassi, M., Pagnozzi, M., & Piccolo, S. (2015). Product differentiation by competing vertical hierarchies. Journal of Economics and Management Strategy, 24(4), 904–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonanno, G., & Vickers, J. (1988). Vertical separation. Journal of Industrial Economics, 36(3), 257–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brekke, K., & Straume, O. (2004). Bilateral monopolies and location choice. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34(3), 275–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, Y. (2001). On vertical mergers and their competitive effects. RAND Journal of Economics, 32(4), 667–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cowan, S. (2012). Third-degree price discrimination and consumer surplus. Journal of Industrial Economics, 60(2), 333–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. d’Aspremont, C., Gabszewicz, J. J., & Thisse, J.-F. (1979). On Hotelling’s ‘stability in competition’. Econometrica, 47(5), 1145–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. d’Aspremont, C., & Jacquemin, A. (1988). Cooperative and noncooperative R&D in duopoly with spillovers. American Economic Review, 78(5), 1133–1137.Google Scholar
  9. Gu, Y., & Wenzel, T. (2009). A note on the excess entry theorem in spatial models with elastic demand. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27(5), 567–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gupta, S., & Loulou, R. (1998). Process innovation, product differentiation, and channel structure: strategic incentives in a duopoly. Marketing Science, 17(4), 301–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition. Economic Journal, 39(153), 41–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ishida, J., Matsumura, T., & Matsushima, N. (2011). Market competition, R&D and firm profits in asymmetric oligopoly. Journal Industrial Economics, 59(3), 484–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kitahara, M., & Matsumura, T. (2006). Realized cost-based subsidies for strategic R&D investments with ex ante and ex post asymmetries. Japanese Economic Review, 57(3), 438–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kitahara, M., & Matsumura, T. (2013). Mixed duopoly, product differentiation and competition. Manchester School, 81(5), 730–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lahiri, S., & Ono, Y. (1999). R&D subsidies under asymmetric duopoly: A note. Japanese Economic Review, 50(1), 104–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lambertini, L. (1997). Unicity of the equilibrium in the unconstrained Hotelling model. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 27(6), 785–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Matsumura, T., & Matsushima, N. (2007). Congestion-reducing investments and economic welfare in a Hotelling model. Economics Letters, 96(2), 161–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Matsumura, T., & Matsushima, N. (2012a). Locating outside a linear city can benefit consumers. Journal of Regional Science, 52(3), 420–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Matsumura, T., & Matsushima, N. (2012b). Welfare properties of strategic R&D investments in Hotelling models. Economics Letters, 115(3), 465–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Matsumura, T., & Shimizu, D. (2011). Endogenous flexibility in the flexible manufacturing system. Bulletin of Economic Research, 67(1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Matsushima, N. (2004). Technology of upstream firms and equilibrium product differentiation. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 22(8–9), 1091–1114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matsushima, N. (2009). Vertical mergers and product differentiation. Journal of Industrial Economics, 57(4), 812–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McGuire, T. W., & Staelin, R. (1983). An industry equilibrium analysis of downstream vertical integration. Marketing Science, 2(2), 161–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Meza, S., & Tombak, M. (2009). Endogenous location leadership. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27(6), 687–707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pagnozzi, M., & Piccolo, S. (2012). Vertical separation with private contracts. Economic Journal, 122(559), 173–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Porter, M. (1980). Competitive strategy. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rey, P., & Stiglitz, J. E. (1995). The role of exclusive territories in producers’ competition. RAND Journal of Economics, 26(3), 431–451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tabuchi, T., & Thisse, J.-F. (1995). Asymmetric equilibria in spatial competition. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13(2), 213–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Tyagi, R. K. (1999). Pricing patterns as outcomes of product positions. Journal of Business, 72(1), 135–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tyagi, R. K. (2000). Sequential product positioning under differential costs. Management Science, 46(7), 928–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tyagi, R. K. (2001). Cost leadership and pricing. Economics Letters, 72(2), 189–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. von Ungern-Sternberg, T. (1988). Monopolistic competition and general purpose products. Review of Economic Studies, 55(2), 231–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of BusinessEast China University of Science and TechnologyShanghaiPeople’s Republic of China
  2. 2.Wenlan School of BusinessZhongnan University of Economics and LawWuhanPeople’s Republic of China

Personalised recommendations