Skip to main content
Log in

Capacity Choices and Price Competition in Experimental Markets

  • Published:
Experimental Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We report on experimental duopoly markets with heterogeneous goods. In these markets, sellers first choose capacities and then prices. While capacities remain fixed for either five or ten periods, prices have to be chosen in every period. The experiments starts with two sets of exogenously predetermined capacities. Independently of the distribution of capacities is, a unique pure-strategy in prices is subgame perfect. In equilibrium, capacities should correspond to the Cournot prediction. Given capacities, price-setting behavior is in general consistent with the theory. Average capacities converge above the Cournot level. Capacities converge at the industry level but are somewhat dispersed. Sellers rarely manage to cooperate.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Boccard, N. and Wauthy, X. (2000). “Bertrand Competition and Cournot Outcomes: Further Results. ” Economics Letters. 68, 279–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown-Kruse, J., Rassenti, S., Reynolds, S., and Smith, V.L. (1994). “Bertrand-Edgeworth Competition in Exper-imental Markets. ” Econometrica. 62(2), 343–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cournot, A. (1838). Recherches sur les principles math´ ematiques de la th´ eorie des richess. Paris: Hachette.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidson, C. and Deneckere, R. (1996). “Long-Run in Capacity, Short-Run Competition in Price, and the Cournot Model. ” RAND Journal of Economics. 17(3), 404–415.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davis, D.D. (1999). “Advance Production and Cournot Outcomes: An Experimental Investigation. ” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 40, 59–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dufwenberg, M. and Gneezy, U. (2000). “Price Competition and Market Concentration: An Experimental Study. ” International Journal of Industrial Organization. 18, 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischbacher, U. (1999). “Z-Tree: Zurich Toolbox for Readymade Economic Experiments. ” Working Paper No. 21, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics, University of Zurich.

  • Güth, W. (1995). “A Simple Justification of Quantity Competition and the Cournot-Oligopoly Solution. ” ifo-Studien. 41(2), 245–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Güth, S. and Güth, W. (2001). “Preemtption in Capacity and Price Determination-AStudy of Endogenous Timing of Decisions for Homogenous Goods. ” Metroeconomica. 52(3), 329–355.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huck, S., Normann, H.-T., and Oechssler, J. (1999). “Learning in Cournot Oligopoly-An Experiment. ” Economic Journal. 109, C80-C95.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huck, S., Normann, H.-T., and Oechssler, J. (2000). “Does Information About Competitors' Actions Increase or Decrease Competition in Experimental Oligopoly Markets?” International Journal of Industrial Organization. 18, 39–58.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huck, S., Normann, H.-T., and Oechssler, J. (2001). “Two are Few and Four are Many: Number Effects in Experimental Oligopolies. ” Mimeo: Humboldt-Universit¨ at zu Berlin. Forthcoming in: Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization.

  • Keser, C. (2000). “Cooperation in Symmetric Duopolies with Demand Inertia. ” International Journal of Industrial Organization. 18, 23–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kreps, D. and Scheinkman, J. (1983). “Quantity Precommitment and Bertrand Competition Yield Cournot Out-comes. ” Bell Journal of Economics. 14, 326–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maggi, G. (1996). “Strategic Trade Policies with Endogenous Mode of Competition. ” American Economic Review. 86, 237–258.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, S. (1999). “Kreps and Scheinkman with Product Differentiation: An Expository Note. ” Mimeo: University of Amsterdam.

  • Martin, S. (2000). “Two-Stage Capacity Constrained Competition. ” Mimeo: University of Amsterdam.

  • Martin, S., Normann, H.T., and Snyder, C.M. (2001). “Vertical Foreclosure in Experimental Markets. ” RAND Journal of Economics. 32, 466–496.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muren, A. (2000). “Quantity Precommitment in an Experimental Oligopoly. ” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 41, 147–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phlips, L. (1995). Competition Policy-A Game Theoretic Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees, R. (1993). “Collusion in the Great Salt Duopoly. ” Economic Journal. 103, 833–848.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenbaum, D.I. (1989). “An Empirical Test of the Effect of Excess Capacity in Price Setting, Capacity-Constraint Supergames. ” International Journal of Industrial Organization. 7, 231–241.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selten R. (1994). “Multistage Game Models and Delay Supergames. ” In T. Fraengsmeyer (ed.), Les Prix Nobel 1994. Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, pp. 320–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selten, R., Mitzkewitz, M., and Uhlich, G.R. (1997). “Duopoly Strategies Programmed by Experienced Players. ” Econometrica. 65, 517–556.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selten, R. and Stoecker, R. (1986). “End Behavior in Finite Prisoner's Dilemma Supergames. ” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 7, 47–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • STATA Corp. (1999): Reference Manual, Release 6, STATA Press Texas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, X. and Ng, Y.-K. (1997). “Quantity Precommitment and Bertrand Competition Yield Cournot Outcomes: A Case with Product Differentiation. ” Australian Economic Review. 36, 14–22.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Anderhub, V., Güth, W., Kamecke, U. et al. Capacity Choices and Price Competition in Experimental Markets. Experimental Economics 6, 27–52 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024248608752

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024248608752

Navigation