Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 177–201 | Cite as

Product Market Competition and Lobbying Coordination in the U.S. Mobile Telecommunications Industry

  • Tomaso DusoEmail author
  • Astrid Jung


This paper empirically investigates market behavior and firms’ lobbying in a unified structural setup. In a sequential game, where firms lobby for regulation before they compete in the product market, we derive a testable measure of lobbying coordination. Applying the setting to the early U.S. cellular services industry, we find that lobbying expenditures, as measured by campaign contributions, and market conduct were consistent with a one-shot Nash equilibrium and that price caps were binding on average. Furthermore, campaign contributions from cellular firms effectively lowered the burden of the price caps and reduced production costs.


collusion lobbying price caps regulation rent-seeking interest groups telecommunications 

JEL Classification

D72 L13 L51 L96 C31 



We are indebted to Marc Ivaldi and Lars-Hendrik Röller for their advice and to Raja Chakir for discussing aspects of the empirical implementation. We are also grateful to Zava Aydemir, Christopher Klein, Eugenio Miravete, Jennifer Rontganger, Ralph Siebert, and seminar audiences at the WZB, the IUI in Stockholm, the meetings of the EEA, EARIE, IIOC, SEA, and EC-2, as well as three anonymous referees for their comments. The second author would like to thank the IDEI in Toulouse, where part of this paper was completed, for their hospitality. Both authors gratefully acknowledge partial financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft grant number Ro 2080/4. Tomaso Duso also gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through SFB/TR 15.


  1. Ansolabehere S, Snyder JM, Tripathi M (2002) Are PAC contributions and lobbying linked? New evidence from the 1995 Lobby Disclosure Act. Bus Polit 4:131–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron D (1999) Integrated market and nonmarket strategies in client and interest group politics. Bus Polit 1:7–34Google Scholar
  3. Besley T, Case A (2000) Unnatural experiments? Estimating the incidence of endogenous policies. Econ J 110:F672–F694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Besley T, Case A (2003) Political institutions and policy choices: evidence from the United States. J Econ Lit 41:7–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bresnahan TF (1989) Empirical studies in industry with market power. In: Schmalansee R, Willig RD (eds) Handbook of industrial organization. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp 1011–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corts KS (1999) Conduct parameters and the measurement of market power. J Econom 88:227–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Damania R, Fredriksson PG (2000) On the formation of industry lobby groups. J Econ Behav Organ 41:315–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Damania R, Fredriksson PG (2002) Trade policy reform, endogenous lobby group, and environmental policy. J Econ Behav Organ 15:1–23Google Scholar
  9. Duso T (2005) Lobbying and regulation in a political economy: evidence from the US cellular industry. Public Choice 122(3–4):251–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Duso T, Röller L-H (2003) Endogenous deregulation: evidence from OECD countries. Econ Lett 81:67–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duso T, Jung A (2007) Market conduct and endogenous lobbying: evidence from the US mobile telecommunications industry. J Ind Compet Trade 7:9–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eicher T, Osang T (2002) Protection for sale: an empirical investigation: comment. Am Econ Rev 92:1702–1710CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gawande K, Bandyopadhyay U (2000) Is protection for sale? Evidence on the Grossman–Helpman theory of endogenous protection. Rev Econ Stat 82:139–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldberg P, Maggi G (1999) Protection for sale: an empirical investigation. Am Econ Rev 89:1135–1154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grossman G, Helpman E (1994) Protection for sale. Am Econ Rev 84:833–850Google Scholar
  16. Hazlett TW, Michaels RJ (1993) The cost of rent-seeking: evidence from cellular telephone license lotteries. South Econ J 59:425–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kreps DM, Scheinkman J (1983) Quantity precommitment and Bertrand competition yield Cournot outcomes. Bell J Econ 14(2):326–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ludema RD (2001) Market collusion and the politics of protection. Eur J Polit Econ 17:817–833CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Olson M (1965) The logic of collective action. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Parker P, Röller L-H (1997) Collusive conduct in duopolies: multimarket contact and cross-ownership in the mobile telephone industry. RAND J Econ 28:304–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Puller SL (2007) Pricing and firm conduct in California’s deregulated electricity market. Rev Econ Stat 89:75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Röller L-H, Sickles RC (2000) Capacity and product market competition: measuring market power in a puppy-dog industry. Int J Ind Organ 18:845–865CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Shew WB (1994) Regulation, competition, and prices in the US cellular telephone industry. Working paper, American Enterprise InstituteGoogle Scholar
  24. Teske P (1991) Rent-seeking in the deregulatory environment: state telecommunications. Public Choice 68:235–243CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. The Council of State Governments (1984) The book of the states 1984–1985, vol 25. The Council of State Governments, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  26. The Council of State Governments (1986) The book of the states 1986–1987, vol 26. The Council of State Governments, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. The Council of State Governments (1988) The book of the states 1988–1989, vol 27. The Council of State Governments, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  28. US Bureau of Census (1989) Statistical abstract of the United States: 1989, 109th edn. US Bureau of Census, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  29. Wales TJ, Woodland AD (1983) Estimation of consumer demand systems with binding non-negativity constraints. J Econom 21:263–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wisconsin Department of Transportation (1996) State highway maintainance manual. Policies 96.31, 96.41Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Humboldt UniversityBerlinGermany
  2. 2.WZBBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations