Dynamic Competition

  • Ricardo G. Barcelona


Looking at rival firms, this chapter simulates real-life cases and feasible outcomes from competing strategies under different scenarios. Two aspects of competitive dynamics are presented and compared under coal- and gas-based power systems. The influence of the firms’ initial endowments on outcomes and the technological obsolescence risks are made apparent through technological substitutions. The simulations throw up a number of counter-intuitive insights that contradict the accepted wisdom of NPV. Prominent among these insights is the learning curve paradox for photovoltaic (PV) and solar power. As equipment costs are expected to significantly fall with an increasing number of installations, firms are encouraged to defer rather than to commit early, as value is potentially enhanced by waiting.


  1. Chevalier-Roignant, B., & Trigeorgis, L. (2011). Competitive strategy: Options and games. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Driouchi, T., Bennett, D. J., & Simpson, G. (2010). A path-dependent contingent-claims approach to capacity investments. European Journal of Operational Research, 201(1), 319–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Grenadier, S. R. (1996). The strategic exercise of options: Development cascades and over-building in real estate markets. Journal of Finance, 51(5), 1653–1679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Helfat, C. E., Finkelstein, S., Mitchell, W., Peteraf, M., Singh, H., Teece, D. J., et al. (2007). Dynamic capabilities: Understanding strategic change in organisations. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  5. Littlechild, S. C. (2001). Competition and regulation in the UK electricity industry (with a brief look at California). Journal of Applied Corporate Finance, 13(4), 21–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. North, D. C. (1990). Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing returns, path dependence, and the study of politics. American Political Science Review, 92, 251–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Porter, M. E. (1996). What is strategy? Harvard Business Review. Google Scholar
  9. Teece, D. J., Rumelt, R., Dosi, G., & Winter, S. (1994). Understanding corporate coherence—Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 23, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Vergne, J. P., & Durrand, R. (2010). The missing link between theory and empirics of path dependence: Conceptual clarification, testability issues, and methodological implications. Journal of Management Studies, 47(4), 736–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IESE Business SchoolUniversity of NavarraBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations