A note on dominant firm market share and economic performance
- 76 Downloads
The hypothesis of a positive concentration-profits relationship has been one of the most thoroughly tested in economics. Market share has been used in a number of these studies as a measure of horizontal dominance by a firm in an industry. Although these studies have shown empirically that a positive relationship exists between market share and rates of return, little theoretical evidence for this relationship exists.
The price leadership model can be used to show that a continuous, direct relationship exists between market share and competitive injury. From a simulation exercise based upon the price leadership model, a positive association is demonstrated between increasing market share of the dominant firm (or collusive leading firms) and increasing competitive injury (as evidenced by a greater divergence between the competitive versus price leadership price-output decisions). This exercise establishes market share as a fundamental structrual variable in describing the short run competitiveness within the industry.
The results of this model imply that intra-industry cross section studies, utilizing a carefully defined price leader(s) and price followers dictomy, should yield better statistical fits. At the present stage of empirical testing, however, only the roughest approximations using rather arbitrary definitions of the price leader-follower dichotomy have been made.
KeywordsMarket Share Economic Performance Industrial Organization Empirical Testing Section Study
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- (a).Dalton, James A. and Levin, Stanford L., “Market Power: Concentration and Market Share,” INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION REVIEW, Vol. 5, (1977), pp. 27–35.Google Scholar
- (b).Dalton, James A. and Levin, and Penn, David W. THE QUALITY OF DATA AS A FACTOR IN ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURE AND PERFORMANCE (GPO, Washington D.C., 1971), a Staff Report to the FTC.Google Scholar
- (c).Gabel, H. Landis, “A Simultaneous Equation Analysis of Industrial Structure and Performance of the United States Petroleum Refining Industry,” Journal Of Industrial Economics 28 (September, 1979), No. 1.Google Scholar
- (d).Gale, Bradley T., “Market Share and Rate of Return,” REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS (1967), pp. 614–627.Google Scholar
- (e).Kwoka, John E. Jr., “The Effect of Market Share Distribution on Industry Performance,” REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS 61 (February 1979), pp. 101–109.Google Scholar
- (f).Lean, David F., Ogur, Johathan D., and Rogers, Robert P., COMPETITION AND COLLUSION IN ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT MARKETS: AN ECONOMIC ASSESSMENT, FTC Staff Report, GPO, 1982.Google Scholar
- (g).Porter, Michael E., “The Structure Within Industries and Companies Performance,” REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, 61, May 1979, pp. 214–217.Google Scholar
- (h).Saving, Thomas R., “Concentration Ratios and the Degree of Monopoly,” INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC REVIEW, Vol. 11, No. 1 February, 1970, p. 139–40.Google Scholar
- (i).Shepherd, William, “The Elements of Market Structure,” REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS (1972).Google Scholar
- (j).Shepherd, William, “The Yields from Abating Market Power, “INDUSTRIAL ORGANIZATION REVIEW, Vol. 1, 1973.Google Scholar
- (k).Stigler, George J., THE THEORY OF PRICE (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1947).Google Scholar
- (l).Sultan, Ralph, PRICING IN THE ELECTRICAL OLIGOPOLY, (Boston: Harvard Business School Division of Research, 1975), Vol. 2.Google Scholar