The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Mergers, Endogenous

  • Volker Nocke
Reference work entry


The term ‘endogenous mergers’ reflects the view in economic theory that mergers are equilibrium outcomes. The literature on endogenous mergers explicitly analyses firms’ incentives to merge and makes predictions on the volume and type of mergers that are likely to occur. In this literature, merger formation is modelled as a bidding game or non-cooperative coalition formation game (Kamien and Zang 1990; Gowrisankaran 1999; Nocke 2000; Pesendorfer 2005), or as an anonymous merger market where firms can buy or sell corporate assets (Jovanovic and Rousseau 2002; Nocke and Yeaple 2007). The literature on endogenous mergers is conceptually distinct from the literature on exogenous mergers, which considers the positive and normative effects of a merger between a given (‘exogenous’) set of firms.


Antitrust Bidding games Coalition formation games Collusion Concentration Cournot model Endogenous mergers Exogenous mergers Horizontal mergers Market power Mergers Monopolization Oligopoly Vertical mergers 

JEL Classifications

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


  1. Compte, O., F. Jenny, and P. Rey. 2002. Capacity constraints, mergers and collusion. European Economic Review 46: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Deneckere, R., and C. Davidson. 1985. Incentives to form coalitions with Bertrand competition. RAND Journal of Economics 16: 473–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Gowrisankaran, G. 1999. A dynamic model of endogenous horizontal mergers. RAND Journal of Economics 30: 56–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gowrisankaran, G., and T.J. Holmes. 2004. Mergers and the evolution of industry concentration: Results from the dominant firm model. RAND Journal of Economics 35: 561–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jovanovic, B., and P.L. Rousseau. 2002. The Q-theory of mergers. American Economic, Review Papers and Proceedings 92: 198–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kamien, M.I., and I. Zang. 1990. The limits of monopolization through acquisition. Quarterly Journal of Economics 105: 465–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Nocke, V. 2000. Monopolisation and industry structure. Economics Working Paper No. 2000-W27, Nuffield College, Oxford.Google Scholar
  8. Nocke, V., and L. White. 2003. Do vertical mergers facilitate upstream collusion? Working Paper No. 03-033, PIER, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
  9. Nocke, V., and S. Yeaple. 2007. Cross-border mergers and acquisitions versus greenfield foreign direct investment: The role of firm heterogeneity. Journal of International Economics 72(2): 336–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pesendorfer, M. 2005. Mergers under entry. RAND Journal of Economics 36: 661–679.Google Scholar
  11. Rey, P., and J. Tirole. 2005. A primer on foreclosure. In Handbook of industrial organization, ed. M. Armstrong and R. Porter, Vol. 3. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  12. Salant, S.W., S. Switzer, and R.J. Reynolds. 1983. Losses from horizontal merger: The effects of an exogenous change in industry structure on Cournot–Nash equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics 98: 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Stigler, G.J. 1950. Monopoly and oligopoly by merger. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings 40: 23–34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Volker Nocke
    • 1
  1. 1.