Skip to main content

Modelling Decentralized Interaction in a Monopolistic Competitive Market

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Modeling, Dynamics, Optimization and Bioeconomics I

Part of the book series: Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics ((PROMS,volume 73))

  • 1179 Accesses

Abstract

This paper models the interaction of consumers’ and firms’ optimal choices with imperfect information in a monopolistic competitive market institution. The decisions of the agents are modeled with stochastic utility and profit functions. We show that using Markov mean field and an agent based model specification the agents stays most of the time within a subset of the space of states. We explore how our results depends on the exogenously established price rule and we make specific interpretation of the transition rate parameters in the context of the economic problem.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Blume and Durlauf [6] attribute this randomness to some form of bounded rationality.

  2. 2.

    Notice that the average cost and the marginal cost in this case coincide.

  3. 3.

    This assumption about the size of the price adjustment Δ p = 1 does not affect the general result. The size of the jumps can be reduced below one but greater than zero without modifying the main results.

  4. 4.

    For more details on the master equation see Chap. 10 of [19]

  5. 5.

    The slaving principle comes from the synergetic. The idea is that in a dynamic system there are fast and slow variables. The dynamics of the fast variables is driven by the slow variables. Thus, it is possible to analyze the system assuming that the fast variables are in their steady state, and that the stable state is driven by the order parameters of the slow variables.

  6. 6.

    Stability Analysis: We assume that the average cost of every firm is constant. Thus, the Jacobian of the system (9.22) is given by

    $$\displaystyle{ \left [\begin{array}{cccc} \psi _{1}-\rho & \psi _{2} & \ldots & \psi _{F} \\ \psi _{1} & \psi _{2}-\rho &\ldots & \psi _{F}\\ \ldots & \ldots &\ldots & \ldots \\ \psi _{1} & \psi _{2} & \ldots & \psi _{F}-\rho \end{array} \right ] }$$
    (9.24)

    where \(\psi _{i} = -ve^{-p_{i}}\). Notice that when firms have the same average cost, this means that all the ψ i are equal. The generic solution of the characteristic polynomial of this matrix is given by

    $$\displaystyle{ \lambda _{i} = -\rho \ \ i = 1..F - 1 }$$
    (9.25)
    $$\displaystyle{ \lambda _{F} = -\sum \limits _{i=1}^{F}\psi _{ i}-\rho }$$
    (9.26)

    Notice that in any case the first F − 1 roots are real and negatives, therefore the system is asymptotically stable.

  7. 7.

    The negative exponential distribution applies frequently in the simulation of the interarrival and interdeparture times of service facilities. For more details see [13].

  8. 8.

    The sign function is defined as,

    $$\displaystyle{ \mathit{sign}(x) = \left \{\begin{array}{cc} 1 & x > 0\\ 0 & x = 0 \\ - 1 & x < 1 \end{array} \right. }$$
    (9.29)
  9. 9.

    See [18] for more details on Genetic Algorithms.

  10. 10.

    The mixing matrices define all the possible states that can be visited as consequence of applying the mutation and crossover operator to the active population of plans that the firms have.

  11. 11.

    We select 25 % of the plans using roulette. Moreover mutation is applied with 0.01 probability.

  12. 12.

    Each bar in the plot represents the mean of 250 simulations. For instance, in the benchmark with homogenous cost the first bar is \(\bar{x}_{0} = \frac{1} {250}\sum _{j=1}^{250}x_{0,5000,j}.\) Where the subindex j counts the simulations.

References

  1. Anderson, S., De Palma, A., Thisse, J.-F.: Discrete Choice Theory of Product Differentiation. MIT Press, Cambridge (1992)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. Aoki, M.: Simple model of asymmetrical business cycles: interactive dynamics of a large number of agents with discrete choice. Macroeconomic Dyn. 2, 427–442 (1998)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  3. Aoki, M.: Cluster size distributions of economic agents of many types in a market. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 249, 35–52 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Aoki, M., Shirai, Y.: A new look at the Diamond search model: stochastic cycles and equilibrium selection in search equilibrium. Macroeconomic Dyn. 4, 487–505 (2000)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Blume, L.: Population games. In: Arthur, W.B., Durlauf, S., Lane, D. (eds.) The Economy as a Complex Evolving System II. Addison-Wesley, Redding (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Blume, L., Durlauf, S.: Equilibrium concepts for social interaction models. Int. Game Theory Rev. 5(3), 193–209 (2002)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  7. Blume, L., Durlauf, S.: The interactions-based approach to socioeconomic behavior. In: Durlauf, S., Young, H.P. Social Dynamics. MIT/Brooking Institution Press, Washington, DC/Cambridge (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Currie, M., Metcalfe, S.: Firms routines, customer switching and market selection under duopoly. J. Evol. Econ. 11, 433–456 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dalle, J.-M.: Heterogeneity vs. externalities in technological competition: a tale of possible technological landscape. J. Evol. Econ. 7, 395–413 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hart, O.D.: Monopolistic competition in the spirit of Chamberlin: a general model. Rev. Econ. Stud. 52, 529–46 (1985)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Kauffman, S., Lobo, J., Macready, W.: Optimal search on a technology landscape. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 43, 141–166 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kelly, F.P.: Reversibility and Stochastic Networks. Wiley, New York (1979)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. Law, A., Kelton, W.: Simulation Modeling and Analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York (1982)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Mas Colell, A., Whinston, M., Green, J.: Microeconomic Theory. Oxford University Press, New York (1995)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. North, D.: Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Salop, S.: Monopolistic competition with outside goods. Bell J. Econ. 10, 141–156 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sargent, T.: Bounded Rationality in Macroeconomics. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1993)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vose, M.: The Simple Genetic Algorithm: Foundation and Theory. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Wolfgang, W.: Sociodynamics: A Systematic Approach to Mathematical Modeling in the Social Sciences. Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam (2000)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Juan Gabriel Brida .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this paper

Cite this paper

Brida, J.G., Garrido, N. (2014). Modelling Decentralized Interaction in a Monopolistic Competitive Market. In: Pinto, A., Zilberman, D. (eds) Modeling, Dynamics, Optimization and Bioeconomics I. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics, vol 73. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-04849-9_9

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics