Seoul Journal of Economics
[ Article ]
Seoul Journal of Economics - Vol. 29, No. 3, pp.411-429
ISSN: 1225-0279 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Aug 2016
Received 19 Nov 2015 Revised 22 Mar 2016 Accepted 04 May 2016

Entry in a Network Industry with a “Capacity-Then-Production” Choice

Domenico Buccella ; Luciano Fanti
Domenico Buccella, Corresponding author, Assistant Professor, Department of Economics, Kozminski University, Jagellońska Street, 57/59-03301-Warsaw, Poland, Tel: +48 22 51 92 153, Fax: +48 22 51 92 153 buccella@kozminski.edu.pl
Luciano Fanti, Professor, Department of Economics and Management, University of Pisa, Via Cosimo Ridolfi, 10, I -56124 Pisa (PI), Italy, Tel: +39 050 22 16 369, Fax: +39 050 22 16 384 lfanti@ec.unipi.it

JEL Classification: L13, L20, L21

Abstract

This study investigates the effect of consumption externalities on entry decision in network industries. A non-monotonic relation exists in the monopoly/duopoly profit differential. A monopolist which has to pay a cost to maintain his dominant position, such as a license fee or lobby expenditures, can block more easily entry for a wide range of network externalities unless these externalities are not exceedingly intense. Therefore, network externalities work as an “innocent” barrier to entry. The capacity choice of the incumbent in a “capacity-then-production” model reinforces the “innocent” entry barrier effect for the potential entrant.

Keywords:

Network externalities, Entry, Deterrence, Capacity choice, Monopoly, Duopoly

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the two anonymous referees for their valuable and constructive comments and suggestions. Usual disclaimers apply.

References

  • Barcena-Ruiz, J. C., and M. B. Garzón. “Capacity Choice in a Mixed Duopoly under Price Competition.” Economics Bulletin 12 (No. 26 2007): 1-7.
  • Bhattacharjee, T., and R. Pal. “Network Externalities and Strategic Managerial Delegation in Cournot Duopoly: Is There A Prisoners Dilemma?” Review of Network Economics 12 (No. 4 2014): 343-53. [https://doi.org/10.1515/rne-2013-0114]
  • Buccella, D. Corrigendum to “The Strategic Choice of Union Oligopoly Bargaining Agenda.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 29 (No. 6 2011): 690–3. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijindorg.2011.03.003]
  • Bughin, J. “The Strategic Choice of Union-Oligopoly Bargaining Agenda.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 17 (No. 7 1999): 1029-40. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(97)00071-4]
  • Cabral, L., D. J. Salant, and G. A. Woroch. “Monopoly pricing with Network Externalities.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 17 (No. 2 1999): 199-214. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0167-7187(97)00028-3]
  • Chirco A., and M. Scrimitore. “Choosing Price or Quantity? The Role of Delegation and Network Externalities.” Economics Letters 121 (No. 3 2013): 482-86. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2013.10.003]
  • Church, J. and R. Ware. Industrial Organization: A Strategic Approach. Boston, MA: Irwin McGraw-Hill, 1999.
  • Economides, N. “Network Externalities, Complementarities, and Invitations to Enter.” European Journal of Political Economy 12 (No. 2 1996): 211-33. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0176-2680(95)00014-3]
  • Fanti, L., and D. Buccella. Bargaining Agenda, Timing, and Entry. MPRA Working Paper Series No. 64089, 2015.
  • Fanti, L., and D. Buccella. “Bargaining Agenda in a Unionised Model with Network Effects.” Italian Economic Journal 2 (No. 1 2016): 91-121. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s40797-015-0026-3]
  • Fanti, L., and N. Meccheri. “Unionisation Regimes, Capacity Choice by Firms and Welfare Outcomes.” The Manchester School (forthcoming).
  • Hoernig, S. “Strategic Delegation under Price Competition and Network Effects.” Economics Letters 117 (No. 2 2012): 487-9. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2012.06.045]
  • Katz, M., and C. Shapiro. “Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility.” The American Economic Review 75 (No. 3 1985): 424-40.
  • Kim, J. “Product Differentiation and Network Externality: A Comment on Economides: “Network Externalities, Complementarities, and Invitations to Enter” [Eur. J. Political Economy 12 (1996) 211-233].” European Journal of Political Economy 18 (No. 2 2002): 397-9. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-2680(02)00089-7]
  • Lee, S., and G. Choi. “The Social Benefit and Cost of Entry Contest in Oligopoly: Cournot-Nash Oligopoly with Linear Demand.” Seoul Journal of Economics 15 (No. 4 2002): 485-98.
  • McAfee, R. P., H. M. Mialon, and M. A. Williams. Economic and Antitrust Barriers to Entry. Mimeograph, 2003. Available at http://vita.mcafee.cc/PDF/Barriers2Entry.pdf, . [https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.594601]
  • McAfee, R. P., H. M. Mialon, and M. A. Williams. “What is a barrier to entry?” American Economic Review 94 (No. 2 2004): 461-5. [https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828041302235]
  • Mukherjee, A., U. Broll, and S. Mukherjee. “The Welfare Effects of Entry: the Role of the Input Market.” Journal of Economics 98 (No. 3 2009): 189-201. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s00712-009-0097-4]
  • Naylor, R. A. “Industry Profits and Competition under Bilateral Oligopoly.” Economics Letters 77 (No. 2 2002a): 169-75. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(02)00107-6]
  • Naylor, R. A. The Effects of Entry in Bilateral Oligopoly. Mimeograph, University of Warwick, 2002b.
  • Nishimori, A., and H. Ogawa. “Do Firms always Choose Excess Capacity?” Economics Bulletin 12 (No. 2 2004): 1-7.
  • Ogawa, H. “Capacity Choice in the Mixed Duopoly with Product Differentiation.” Economics Bulletin 12 (No. 8 2006): 1-6.
  • Spence, A. M. “Entry, Capacity, Investment and Oligopolistic Pricing.” The Bell Journal of Economics (1977): 534-44. [https://doi.org/10.2307/3003302]
  • Tyagi, R. “On the Effects of Downstream Entry.” Management Science 45 (No. 1 1999): 59-73. [https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.45.1.59]
  • Vives, X. “Commitment, Flexibility, and Market Outcomes.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 4 (No. 2 1986): 217-29. [https://doi.org/10.1016/0167-7187(86)90032-9]