Skip to main content
Log in

Cournot–Stackelberg games in competitive delocation

  • APMOD 2014
  • Published:
Annals of Operations Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In order to mitigate the effects of the contraction in demand during economic crises, firms face the need to reduce the number of facilities in their networks. This reduction must be conducted taking into consideration both the possible actions of their rival firms and the reaction of the affected customers, so that the loss of market share is minimised. In this article, we analyse the facility closing problem of two firms operating in a duopolistic market. The problem is modelled as a non-cooperative game over a binary integer programming formulation of the firms’ delocation problem. The possible outcome of the game is analysed for three different competitive scenarios: Myopic behaviour, Cournot conjectures, and Stackelberg strategies. These scenarios are analysed under the assumption that customers show certain level of loyalty to the firm that they initially resorted to. This assumption entitles us to establish the existence of Nash equilibria in the delocation game by means of the introduction of a social planner. Moreover, this social planner provides a mechanism for computing the Nash equilibrium in the Cournot delocation game. Additionally, we develop an algorithmic approach that provides a simple mechanism for finding equilibria under Stackelberg strategies. Experimental results indicate that for small reductions in the network size the solution under myopic behaviour is often an equilibrium. For large reductions, evidence has been found that there is a first mover advantage in the Stackelberg delocation game.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Source: Instituto Nacional de Estadística, Spain

Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Ashtiani, M. G., Makui, A., & Ramezanian, R. (2013). A robust model for a leader-follower competitive facility location pro blem in a discrete space. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 37, 62–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benati, S., & Hansen, P. (2002). The maximum capture problem with random utilities: Problem formulation and algorithms. European Journal of Operational Research, 143, 518–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beresnev, V. (2013). Branch-and-bound algorithm for a competitive facility location model. Computers and Operations Research, 40(8), 2062–2070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berman, O., Drezner, T., Drezner, Z., & Krass, D.(2009). Modeling competitive facility location problems: New approaches and results. In TutORials in Operations Research, (pp. 156–181). INFORMS, San Diego.

  • Bhaumic, P. (2010). Optimal shrinking of the distribution chain: The facilities delocation decision. International Journal of Systems Science, 41, 271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardinal, J., & Hoefer, M. (2010). Non-cooperative facility location and covering games. Theoretical Computer Science, 411(16), 1855–1876.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colomé, R., Lourenço, H., & Serra, D. (2004). A new chance—constrained maximum capture location problem. Annals of Operations Research, 122, 121–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cournot, A. (1897). Researches into the mathematical principals of theory of wealth. New York: MacMillan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorta-González, P., Santos-Peñate, D. R., & Suárez-Vega, R. (2005). Spatial competition in networks under delivered pricing. Papers in Regional Science, 84(2), 271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, T. (2014). A review of competitive facility location in the plane. Logistics Research, 7(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, T., Drezner, Z., & Salhi, S. (2002). Solving the multiple competitive facilities location problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 142(1), 138–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eiselt, H., & Laporte, G. (1989). The maximum capture model in a weighted network. Journal of Regional Science, 29(3), 433–439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fernández, J., Salhi, S., & Boglárka, G. (2014). Location equilibria for a continuous competitive facility location problem under delivered pricing. Computers & Operations Research, 41, 185–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, J. W. (1990). Game theory with applications to economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gosh, A., & Craig, C. S. (1984). A location allocation model for facility planning in a competitive environment. Geographical Analysis, 16(1), 39–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gronholdt, L., Martensen, A., & Kristensen, K. (2000). The relationship between customer satisfaction and loyalty: Cross-industry differences. Total Quality Management, 11(4–6), 509–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hakimi, S. (1986). p-Median theorems for competitive location. Annals of Operations Research, 5, 79–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hakimi, S. L. (1983). On locating new facilites in a competitive environment. European Journal of Operational Research, 12, 29–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hotelling, H. (1929). Stability in competition. Economic Journal, 39, 41–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Karkazis, J. (1989). Facilities location in a competitive environment: A promethee-based multiple criteria analysis. European Journal of Operational Research, 42, 294–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kress, D., & Pesch, E. (2012). Sequential competitive location on networks. European Journal of Operational Research, 217, 483–499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Küçükaydın, H., Aras, N., & Altınel, I. (2011). A discrete competitive facility location model with variable attractiveness. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62, 1726–1741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Labbé, M., & Hakimi, S. (1991). Market and location equilibrium for two competitors. Operations Research, 39(5), 749–756.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lederer, P. J., & Thisse, J. F. (1990). Competitive location on networks under delivered pricing. Operations Research Letters, 9(3), 147–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marianov, V., Serra, D., & ReVelle, Ch. (1999). Location of hubs in a competitive environment. European Journal of Operational Research, 114, 363–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martensen, A., Gronholdt, L., & Kristensen, K. (2000). The drivers of customer satisfaction and loyalty: Cross-industry findings from denmark. Total Quality Management, 11(4–6), 544–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T., Friesz, T., Tobin, R., & Kwon, C. (2007). Reaction fnnction based dynamic location modeling in stackelberg–Nash–cournot competition. Network and Spatial Economics, 7, 77–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, T., Tobin, R., & Friesz, T. (1991). Stackelberg games on a network with cournot-nash oligopolistic competitors. Journal of Regional Science, 31(4), 435–454.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pelegrín-Pelegrín, B., Dorta-González, P., & Fernández-Hernández, P. (2011). Finding location equilibria for competing firms under delivered pricing. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 62(4), 729–741.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ReVelle, Ch. (1986). The maximum capture or “Sphere of Influence” location problem: Hotelling revisited on a network. Journal of Regional Science, 26(2), 343–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ReVelle, Ch., Murray, A., & Serra, D. (2007). Location models for ceding market share and shrinking services. Omega, 35(5), 533–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ReVelle, Ch., & Serra, D. (1991). The maximum capture problem including relocation. Canadian Journal of Operations Research, 29(2), 130–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruiz-Hernández, D., Delgado-Gómez, D., & López-Pascual, J.(2014). Restructuring bank networks after mergers and acquisitions: A capacitated delocation model for closing and resizing branches. Computers and Operations Research, 62, 316–324.

  • Sáiz, M. E., Hendrix, E., & Pelegrín, B. (2011). On Nash equilibria of a competitive location-design problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 210, 588–593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santos-Peñate, D., Suárez-Vega, R., & Dorta-González, P. (2007). The leader-follower location model. Network and Spatial Economics, 7, 45–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serra, D., Marianov, V., & ReVelle, C. (1992). The maximum capture hierarchical location problem. European Journal of Operational Research, 62, 363–372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serra, D., & ReVelle, C. (1994). Market capture by two competitors: The preemptive location problem. Journal of Regional Science, 34(4), 549–561.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serra, D., & ReVelle, C. (1996). The maximum capture problem with uncertainty. Environment and Planning B, 62, 49–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Serra, D., & ReVelle, C. (1999). Competitive location and pricing on networks. Geographical Analysis, 31(1), 110–129.

    Google Scholar 

  • Serra, D., ReVelle, Ch., & Rosing, K. (1999). Surviving in a competitive spatial market. Regional Science, 39(4), 637–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, R. E., & Wright, W. F. (2004). Determinants of customer loyalty and financial performance. Journal of Management Accounting Research, 16(1), 183–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Stackelberg, H. (1934). The theory of market economy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (English Translation, 1952).

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, R. (1974). A parametric decomposition approach for the solution of capacitated location problems. Management Science, 21(2), 189–198.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teitz, M. B. (1968). Locational strategies for competitive systems. Journal of Regional Science, 8(2), 135–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teitz, M. B., & Bart, P. (1968). Heuristic methods for estimating the generalized vertex median of a weighted graph. Operations Research, 16(5), 955–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tirole, J. (1988). The theory of industrial organization. Cambridge: MIT press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tobin, R., & Friesz, T. (1986). Spatial competition facility location models: Definition, formulation and solution approach. Annals of Operations Research, 6, 49–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendell, R., & MacKelvey, R. (1981). New perspectives in competitive location theory. European Journal of Operational Research, 6, 174–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diego Ruiz-Hernández.

Appendix

Appendix

see Tables 5, 6 and 7.

Table 5 Coordinates of demand nodes in the extended Swain Network
Table 6 Population associated to each demand node
Table 7 Coordinates of Firm 1 and Firm 2 facilities

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ruiz-Hernández, D., Elizalde, J. & Delgado-Gómez, D. Cournot–Stackelberg games in competitive delocation. Ann Oper Res 256, 149–170 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2288-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10479-016-2288-z

Keywords

Navigation