Advance production, inventories, and market power: an experimental investigation.
Davis, Douglas D.
I. INTRODUCTION
Bertrand-Edgeworth games are an important part of any industrial
organization economist's toolkit. The unilateral market power
created by capacity constraints represents one of economists'
primary methods for modeling supra-competitive prices as a static
equilibrium outcome in a price-setting game. (1) The standard
Bertrand-Edgeworth model, however, rather restrictively assumes that
production is "to demand" and that goods are immediately
perishable. In the broad swath of modern economies that includes the
production and sale of physical products, these assumptions are often
not even approximately satisfied. Goods are routinely produced prior to
being offered for sale at retail establishments. Similarly, while the
effective shelf life of many products is quite short, relatively few
products perish immediately, and many have effective shelf lives that
extend throughout a sales season, if not longer.
This paper reports a laboratory experiment conducted to assess the
effects of having sellers make production decisions in advance rather
than to demand, and allowing sellers to carry unsold units across
periods on market power in a Bertrand-Edgeworth pricing game. By way of
preview, we find that both advance production and an inventory option
prominently affect market outcomes: advance production reduces profits
relative to a baseline condition, while an inventory option reduces both
prices and profits. These results are important as they suggest that
deviations from the standard oligopoly structures that routinely arise
in natural contexts may fundamentally affect market performance.
We organize the paper as follows. Following a brief review of the
pertinent literature in Section II, we outline equilibrium predictions
for baseline, advance production, and inventory treatments in Section
III. Section IV describes the experimental design and procedures, and
Section V presents the experimental results. The paper concludes with a
short Section VI.
II. BACKGROUND
A. Theoretical Literature
Economists have long recognized the restrictiveness of the standard
price-setting oligopoly models. Shubik (1955), for example, argues that
when evaluating price-setting duopolies economists should consider
"price-quantity" games where sellers simultaneously post
prices and quantities in addition to games where price is the only
decision variable. (2) Levitan and Shubik (1978) compute the mixed
strategy equilibrium for a duopoly given advance production and
unlimited capacities. More recently Tasnadi (2004) analyzes the case of
advance production for capacity constrained duopolists pertinent to the
present investigation. Tasnadi shows that under very general conditions,
advance production raises prices, but leaves seller profits unaffected.
The only theoretical work that analyzes the links between product
durability and market prices of which we are aware is a stream of
literature following Coase (1972) regarding the effects of product
durability on monopoly power. Specifically, given sufficiently patient
consumers, the "Coase Conjecture" suggests that infinite
durability will eliminate monopoly power. Analytical results are driven
by consumers, who drive prices down by waiting for future discounts. (3)
To the best of our knowledge, no one has analyzed the effects of product
durability on production and pricing incentives for capacity
constrained, price-setting duopolists.
B. Experimental Literature
The relevant experimental literature consists of three strands. A
first strand consists of a series of papers establishing that laboratory
sellers recognize and exercise the unilateral market power induced by
capacity constraints. Pertinent seminal references are Davis and Holt (1994) and Kruse et al. (1994), while some relevant related papers
include Davis, Holt, and Villamil (2002), Davis and Wilson (2000), and
Wilson (1998). A second strand of the experimental literature studies
the effects of advance production on posted price markets. Mestelman,
Welland, and Welland (1988) and Mestelman and Welland (1988, 1991)
examine advance production in a discrete-unit step-function environment,
where cost and demand conditions are not provided as full information.
These authors report that relative to baseline posted-offer markets,
advance production reduces efficiency and lowers prices in the
equilibrium discovery process.
More closely related to the present study is Brandts and Guillen
(2007), who examine the effects of advance production in simple
symmetrical full information posted-offer pricing games, where sellers
possess no unilateral market power. In their "price and
quantity" games with both two and three sellers Brandts and Guillen
report high prices relative to Walrasian ("competitive")
predictions, and numerous instances where sellers divided the market at
the joint-maximizing price, a result which can only be attributed to
tacit collusion. Although their design was well suited for their
intended research objective (of evaluating performance relative to
"pure quantity" and "pure price" benchmarks), it is
of limited use for identifying the incremental effects of advance
production relative to standard posted-offer markets, because the
authors conduct no baseline "to demand" markets against which
performance in their advance production markets can be compared.
A third strand of experimental literature consists of experiments
in designs with durable goods. Although product durability is a feature
of a diverse variety of experimental investigations, only a very few
papers investigate the effects of durability on the incentives of
sellers who both produce goods and carry inventories.4 Two papers merit
comment. First, Mestelman and Welland (1991) examines the effects of
inventory carryover on convergence in posted-offer (as well as in double
auction) markets. These were relatively thick markets with step-function
supply and demand configurations patterned after the advance production
designs reported by Mestelman, Welland, and Welland (1987). Sellers
could costlessly carry inventories indefinitely. The focus of the
investigation was on the extent to which inventories affected the
equilibrium discovery process. These authors report that relative to
baseline posted-offer markets, inventory carryover reduces both prices
and efficiency. Nevertheless, inventory carryover has little marginal
effect on outcomes relative to the case of advance production.
In a second paper, Reynolds (2000) reports an experiment conducted
to examine the effects of variations in product durability on monopoly
pricing. Reynolds finds little evidence that increased product
durability reduces prices, as would be consistent with the Coase
conjecture. Reynolds' experiment is related to our inventory
treatment in that both experiments examine contexts where increased
product durability generates predicted price reductions. However, in
distinction to Reynolds, we here study the effects of inventory on
seller incentives vis a vis other sellers rather than with respect to
buyers.
The present study adds to the experimental literature on both
advance production and inventory. With respect to advance production, we
develop a design that allows identification of static equilibrium
predictions, and then we compare results to a series of baseline markets
in a standard "to demand" condition. These design features
allow us to examine both the extent of tacit collusion in our markets
and the incremental effects of advance production on prices and
earnings. With respect to product durability, we report an inventory
treatment that provides a first insight into the effects of inventory on
seller interactions (as opposed to seller-buyer interactions) in an
environment where performance can be evaluated relative to theoretical
predictions.
III. ADVANCE PRODUCTION, INVENTORIES, AND MARKET POWER
The addition of advance production and particularly an inventory
option complicates significantly the analysis of the standard
Bertrand-Edgeworth game. Advance production adds a quantity dimension to
the pricing game, while the possibility of inventory carryover creates
subgames that are dependent on actions in previous periods. For that
reason, we focus here on a very simple stylized model.
Consider a market with two symmetric sellers, S1 and S2. Each
seller may offer up to two units for sale at a constant unit cost c.
Thus, in total a maximum of four units may be offered for sale, as shown
in Figure 1. As is also shown in Figure 1, assume that a single buyer
will purchase eight units at prices p [less than or equal to]
[[upsilon].sub.L] and three units in the range [[upsilon].sub.L] < p
[less than or equal to] [[upsilon].sub.H]. It facilitates our
presentation to develop results in terms of our experimental design
parameters. As Figure 1 indicates, we set [[upsilon].sub.H] = $6.00,
[[upsilon].sub.L] = $3.50 and c = $2.00.
The market proceeds in a standard two-step sequence. First, sellers
simultaneously post prices. Second, once pricing decisions are complete,
a fully revealing buyer makes purchase decisions, starting with the low
pricing seller, and then proceeding to the high pricing seller. The
buyer continues making purchases until either all units offered have
been bought or prices no longer exceed unit values. In the case that the
sellers post the same price, the buyer divides purchases as evenly as
possible among the sellers. When necessary, the seller for a final odd
unit is determined randomly.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
In the following three subsections, we develop static equilibrium
predictions for three regimes: a baseline regime ("BASE")
where production is to demand, an advance production regime
("AP") where sellers incur production costs on offered units,
regardless of whether or not they subsequently sell, and an inventory
regime ("INV") with both advance production and a single
period carryover of unsold units to the next period. A fourth subsection offers comments regarding dynamic considerations.
A. Static Predictions, BASE Treatment
Standard production-to-demand conditions create unilateral market
power. To see this, denote price choices by sellers S1 and $2 as pl and
P2, respectively. Further, for specificity, assume that seller S1 posts
the weakly higher price. Observe that for any pair of prices (Pl, P2)
with [[upsilon].sub.L] < [p.sub.2] [less than or equal to] [p.sub.1]
[less than or equal to] [[upsilon].sub.H], three of the four units
supplied are purchased. Thus each seller is certain to sell at least one
unit at price [[upsilon].sub.H], and earn security profits
[[upsilon].sub.H] - C. Following the standard reasoning, no equilibrium
exists for this game in pure strategies. Rather, sellers randomize over
the range [[p.sub.min], [[upsilon].sub.H]], where [p.sub.min] is the
price where sellers earn security profits from selling two units as the
low pricing sellers, or
(1) [p.sub.min] = [[upsilon].sub.H] + c)/2
Using the parameters in our experimental design, [p.sub.min] =
($6.00 q- $2.00)/2 = $4.00.
For the symmetric equilibrium mixing distribution, calculate the
cumulative pricing distribution [F.sub.B](p) that seller $2 must post to
make S1 indifferent to all prices in the support of her distribution, p
[member of] [[p.sub.min], [[upsilon].sub.h]]. That is
[[upsilon].sub.h] - c = [F.sub.B] (p)(p - c) + (1 -
[F.sub.B](p))(2p - 2c)
solving
(2) [F.sub.B](p) = (2p - [[upsilon].sub.H] - C)/(p - C) = (2p -
8)/(p - 2)
where the bottom expression in Equation (2)
is the cumulative pricing distribution using our experimental
parameters. Notice in Equation (2), that given [p.sub.min] =$4.00 and
[[upsilon].sub.h] =$6.00, [F.sub.B] ([p.sub.min]) = 0 and [F.sub.B]
([[upsilon].sub.H]) = 1, implying that no probability mass exists at
either end of [F.sub.B](p). Columns 1-3 in the top row of Table 1 list
expected transaction price, profit, and consumer surplus predictions for
the BASE treatment. As shown in the table, the mean expected transaction
price is [[bar.P].sub.BT] = $4.67, seller profits (here equal to
security earnings, [[upsilon].sub.H] - c) are $4.00 and consumer surplus
(the difference between buyer reservation values and the mean
transaction price for the three units that sell in equilibrium,
3([[upsilon].sub.H] - [[bar.P].sub.BT])) equals $4.00. (5) Anticipating
results similar to other related experiments in this baseline case is a
first conjecture.
CONJECTURE 1. Sellers recognize and exercise their unilateral
market power. The mean of the symmetric static Nash Equilibrium mixing
distribution organizes results in the BASE treatment.
We conduct BASE treatment markets primarily for purposes of
calibration with other comparable environments where sellers exercised
unilateral market power, such as Davis and Holt (1994) and Kruse et al.
(1994). BASE treatment results also provide a reference against which we
can compare results of the other treatments.
B. Static Predictions, AP Treatment
Assume now that sellers must make both production and pricing
decisions simultaneously.
In the market game shown in Figure 1, sellers retain their market
power with advance production in the sense that they can still be
certain to sell a single unit at p = [[upsilon].sub.H] and realize
security earnings of [[upsilon].sub.H] - c. Further, the support of the
mixing distribution is unchanged because sellers will still post prices
down to the same minimum price [p.sub.min], where the earnings from
selling two units as the low pricing seller just equal security
earnings. Now, however, sellers must make a quantity decision as well as
a price choice. Consider the quantity choice. Observe first that when a
seller restricts production to a single unit, (s)he will always post p =
[[upsilon].sub.H] because the seller is certain to sell a single unit at
any admissible price. To find the distribution of quantity choices, let
[theta] denote the probability that a seller offers a single unit (at p
= [[upsilon].sub.H]), and let (1 - [theta]) denote the probability of an
offer of two units at any price over the support of the mixing
distribution. In order to induce indifference in seller S1 between
offering one and two units, seller S2 must pick [theta] so that
(3) [[upsilon].sub.H] - c = 2[theta]([[upsilon].sub.H] - C) + (1 -
[theta])([[upsilon].sub.H] - 2C)
solving [theta] = c/vn or, given our parameters, [theta] = 113.
The equilibrium pricing distribution is derived similarly. To
induce indifference in seller S1 over the support of the pricing
distribution [[p.sub.min], [[upsilon].sub.H]] seller S2 must price
according to a cumulative distribution [G.sub.A](p) so that
(4) [[upsilon].sub.H] - c = 2[theta](p - c) + [(p - 2C)[G.sub.A](p)
+ (1 - [theta])2(p - c)(l - [G.sub.A](p))]
solving
(5) [G.sub.A](p) = (2p - [[upsilon].sub.H] - c)/[(1 - [theta])p].
Notice in Equation (5) that 0 = 1/3 implies that
[G.sub.A]([p.sub.min])=0 and G([[upsilon].sub.H])= 1. Thus, as long as
seller $2 offers two units no probability mass exists over the support
of the pricing distribution. Importantly, however, Equation (5) reflects
a seller's pricing distribution, conditional on offering two units.
The equilibrium distribution of observed prices consists of Equation (5)
weighted by the probability of a seller offering two units, or
(6) G(p) = (2p - [[upsilon].sub.H] - c)/p.
Columns 1-3 in the second row of Table 1 summarize observed price,
profit, and consumer surplus predictions for the advance production
treatment. (6) Comparing across the BASE and AP treatments, observe that
although advance production does not affect seller profits, it does
raise substantially the expected mean transactions price, from $4.67 to
$5.11. Because of the increased average prices, consumer surplus also
falls by a third, from $4.00 to $2.67. The effects of advance production
on outcomes form a second conjecture.
CONJECTURE 2. Static Nash predictions organize outcomes in AP
markets. Relative to BASE markets, advance production raises
transactions prices and reduces consumer surplus, but does not affect
profits.
C. Static Predictions, INV Treatment
Consider now a simple inventory option. Assume that in addition to
making an advance production decision each period, sellers may carry
unsold units as inventory for one period. Inventoried units carry over
costlessly and are sold on a first-in-first-out basis. Any unsold
inventoried units become worthless at the expiration of the period.
Finally, assume that the game repeats indefinitely, with a probability
of continuation [delta] [greater than or equal to] 0.77.
The appropriate solution concept for games like the inventory game,
with variable states, is the Markov Perfect Equilibrium (MPE). Markov or
"state space" strategies are those in which the past
influences current play only through its effect on a state variable that
summarizes the direct effect of the past profile on the current
equilibrium. Here inventories are the state variable, which we represent
as ordered integer combinations ([I.sub.1], [I.sub.2]) for seller S1 and
S2, respectively. A MPE is "a profile of Markov strategies that
yields Nash equilibrium in every proper subgame." (7)
To identify an MPE for the inventory game we first develop a
candidate equilibrium, and then verify (numerically) that this candidate
equilibrium is in fact a best response for each possible state. Here in
the text, we confine our attention only to an intuitive motivation of
the candidate equilibrium and leave to a supporting information Appendix
S2 for a more complete development.
The insight motivating our candidate equilibrium is that, given a
sufficiently high discount factor, inventories can be an asset that
improves profits by allowing sellers to service both the high value
portion of the market at high prices in some periods and, after building
up sufficient aggregate inventory, the low value portion of the market
in others.
The following three-period strategy represents an obvious sequence
of plays that follows this intuition. In each period, the seller
produces two new units. Starting from an initial no-inventory condition
the seller posts the limit price p = [[upsilon].sub.H] in two initial
periods and sells a single unit each period. Inventory increases from
one then to two units. In a third period, the seller clears inventory by
posting the competitive price p = [[upsilon].sub.L]. (8) Provided that
the rival seller did not find profitable interference with this cycle of
inventory accumulation/depletion, such a strategy would be repeatable.
In fact, it is easily verified that the rival would not interfere with
such a cycle. To the contrary, the above three-period sequence is not an
equilibrium because a rival may exploit a seller following such a
strategy by selling two units at the minimum permissible increment below
[[upsilon].sub.H] in each of the initial two periods and then selling
two units at p = [[upsilon].sub.L] in the third.
To develop the candidate equilibrium, we follow the examples in
Equations (2) and (4) and calculate the cumulative pricing distributions
that each seller must follow to induce indifference on the rival over
every price in the support of the rival's mixing distribution, for
each period of the above three-period sequence. Calculations in this
case are distinct, however, in that expected earnings must account for
the future as well as the immediate consequences of pricing outcomes.
Using the parameters in our experiment, we establish in supporting
information Appendix S2 the following proposition.
PROPOSITION 1. For the INV game with our experimental parameters
and discount rate [delta], a Markov Perfect Equilibrium consists of six
(own-seller, other-seller) inventory states: (0, 0), (1,0), (2,0),
(0,1), (0,2), and (1,1).
In state (0, 0), the seller prices according to the cumulative
distribution function [F.sub.I1] (P) = [6(p - [p.sub.min-I1)]/(3p -
6[delta] - 7[[delta].sup.2]), over the support [p.sub.min-I1], $6.00]
where
[p.sub.min-I1] = (18 + 6[delta] + 7[[delta].sup.2])/6.
In state (1, 0) the seller prices according to the cumulative price
distribution [F.sub.I2I](p) = [3(p - [p.sub.min-I2])]/[3P - 10.5[delta]]
over the support [[p.sub.min-I2], $6.00] where[p.sub.min-I2] = (6 +
7[delta])/3.
In state (0, 1) the seller prices according to the cumulative price
distribution
[F.sub.I2N](P) = [3(p - pmin-I2)]/(2P - 7[delta]).
In states (2, 0), (1, 1), and (0, 2), the seller posts a price p =
[v.sub.L] = $3.50, produces two units and sells all inventory.
Columns 1-3 in the bottom two rows of Table 1 list the mean
transaction price, profit, and consumer surplus predictions for the INV
treatment, for [delta] = 0.90 and in the limit, when [delta] = 1.00.
Looking at predictions across [delta] values within the INV treatment,
observe that both the mean transaction price and seller profits move
directly with [delta]. Nevertheless, observe that even in the limit when
[delta] = 1.00, mean transaction prices per period for the INV treatment
($4.63) are slightly lower than in the BASE treatment ($4.67) and are
much lower than in the AP treatment ($5.11). Further, as indicated by
the mean per unit transaction price $4.28, predicted differences between
the INV, BASE, and AP treatments are considerably larger if an
adjustment is made for the higher predicted sales volume in the low
price periods. Second, and as a consequence of the lower prices, both
profits and consumer surplus are higher in the INV treatment relative to
other treatments. The predicted differences are particularly large
relative to the AP treatment (at least $4.11 in the INV treatment vs.
$2.67). Finally, neither the lower prices nor the increased consumer
surplus adversely affect sellers. To the contrary, an inventory option
represents a Pareto improving institutional alteration. These
comparisons motivate a third conjecture.
CONJECTURE 3. MPE predictions organize outcomes in the INV
treatment. Relative to static Nash BASE predictions inventory carryover
reduces market power in the sense that mean transaction prices fall.
Further, inventories raise both seller profits and consumer surplus.
D. Dynamic Considerations
In standard indefinitely repeated games, repetition creates
additional contingent strategy equilibria. As a practical matter,
concerns about tacit collusion are often of particular relevance in
duopoly contexts, and have been observed with some frequency in standard
Bertrand-Edgeworth games. Some particularly well-known examples include
the studies of Dufwenberg and Gneezy (2000) and Fouraker and Siegel
(1963). One way to assess the profitability of such contingent
strategies is to consider the effect of changes in the institution on
the well-known "Friedman coefficient," or the minimum discount
factor (e.g., probability of continuation) necessary to support a
contingent strategy equilibrium at the limit price p =
[[upsilon].sub.H]. Column 4 of Table 1 reports Friedman coefficients for
the three treatments. Looking down the rows in Table 1, observe that
moving from BASE to AP and then to INV, the Friedman coefficient
increases from 0.50 to 0.62 and then to 0.69, reflecting a weakening of
incentives to cooperate as institutional complexity increases. (9)
The listed changes in the Friedman coefficient, however, likely
understate the effects of institutional alterations on the incidence of
tacit collusion, because Friedman coefficient calculations ignore the
changes in monitoring and implementation costs that successful tacit
collusion in the AP and INV treatments requires. Going from the BASE to
the AP regime, for example, sellers must shift from a relatively
uncoordinated scheme of simply posting the limit price each period (in
the BASE treatment) to a considerably more structured scheme of posting
the limit price, but then rotating production quantities across periods
in order to maximize joint profits. In the INV treatment, sellers must
again rotate production quantities across periods. Further, however,
sellers must trust their rivals to not (either purposely or
inadvertently) carry inventories that the rival may feel compelled to
clear at some point.
The above observations suggest that to the extent tacit collusion
is a feature of our duopolies, it will more prominently impact the BASE
markets than AP or INV. This is a fourth conjecture.
CONJECTURE 4. Tacit collusion will affect BASE markets most
prominently, followed by AP and then INV markets.
In addition to providing a reason we might expect to reject any of
the Conjectures 1-3, Conjecture 4 affects expectations regarding
comparative static effects across treatments. A relatively higher
propensity toward tacit collusion in the BASE and ADV markets should
reinforce the predicted comparative static effects of these treatments
relative to the INV treatment. At the same time, an increased propensity
toward tacit collusion in the BASE markets relative to the AP markets
will work against and may eliminate predicted static differences between
the BASE and AP markets.
IV. EXPERIMENT DESIGN AND PROCEDURES A. Design
To evaluate the effects of advance production and inventory on
duopoly market power we conducted an experiment consisting of nine
10-person sessions. In each session, the ten participants were grouped
into a series of five duopolies, creating a total of 15 markets in each
treatment. Because of an inadvertent recording error, however, results
of one of the AP markets were lost. Thus, in total the data set consists
of 44 independent markets; 15 markets each in the BASE and INV
treatments; and 14 markets in the AP treatment.
B. Procedures
At the outset of each session participants were randomly seated at
computer terminals and handed sets of instructions. The instructions
explained the market trading rules, the supply and demand conditions, as
well as the number of certain periods and the stopping rule used to
terminate sessions. Instructions were read aloud by a monitor, as
participants followed along on printed copies of their own. To help
clarify instructions, we also projected color screen shots of the user
interface on a screen at the front of the laboratory, and pointed to
pertinent parts of the screen shots while reading the instructions.
After completing the instructions participants completed a quiz of
understanding, and completed an initial ten-period practice sequence for
which they were not paid. Participants were invited to raise their hands
and ask questions at any time during the instructions, quiz, and
practice periods.
Following the practice periods, participants were re-paired with
new anonymous partners and the salient periods of the session commenced,
with participants taking up to 90 seconds each trading period. Markets
consisted of 40 periods with certainty followed by an indefinite number of periods which were terminated according to a [delta] = 0.9
probability of continuation each period. (10) At the conclusion of the
session, participants were privately paid the sum of their salient
earnings and a $6.00 appearance fee. Salient laboratory earnings were
converted to U.S. currency at a rate of $10 lab = U.S. $1. Participants
were 90 undergraduate students enrolled in upper level business and
economics courses at Virginia Commonwealth University in the Spring
semester of 2009. Earnings for the 60-75-minute sessions ranged from
$12.25 to $45.25 and averaged $26.10. (11)
V. RESULTS
A. Overview
The mean transaction price, consumer surplus, and profit paths for
the 40 periods common to each session, shown in Figures 2-4, provide an
overview of results. Consider first the mean transaction price paths in
Figure 2. Examination of the transaction price path for the BASE
treatment relative to the BASE treatment Nash prediction,
[[bar.p].sub.BASE], reveals that tacit collusion very importantly
affects the BASE markets. Further, as suggested by the general upward
trend of the transaction price path for the BASE treatment, the effects
of tacit collusion in these markets appear to increase over time.
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
In contrast to the BASE treatment, tacit collusion does not so
obviously carry over to the AP or INV markets. In the AP treatment the
static Nash prediction, [[bar.P].sub.AP], organizes mean results rather
well for the last half of the session, following an initial convergence
from below. In the INV treatment, mean transaction prices fall
consistently below the relevant static prediction, [[bar.P].sub.INV]
after period 10. Comparing across treatments, the separation between the
INV price path and those for the BASE and AP treatments is particularly
noticeable. Toward the end of the sessions, mean prices in the INV
treatment are in the order of $1.00 lower than in the other treatments,
or some 40% of the range between joint-maximization and Walrasian
(competitive) outcomes, [p.sub.w].
Turning next to the consumer surplus chart shown in Figure 3,
observe that consumer surplus extraction rates are much higher in the
INV treatment than in either the BASE or AP treatments. This is a
consequence of the low prices in the INV treatment. Note also that
because of the tacit collusion in the BASE markets, consumer surplus
extraction rates tend to be below static Nash BASE predictions at the
outset, with the differences between observed and predicted outcomes
increasing over time.
Looking finally at the seller earnings paths, shown in Figure 4,
observe that the profit consequences for the BASE and AP series differ
markedly, this despite the similarities in the mean prices and consumer
surplus extraction rates for these two treatments. In the BASE
treatment, seller earnings trend far above static Nash equilibrium
earnings predictions, reflecting profitable tacit collusion. In
contrast, after starting low, mean seller earnings in the AP series tend
to vacillate about static Nash predictions. Notice also in Figure 4 that
the profit series for the INV treatment lies well below both static Nash
predictions for the INV treatment, and, toward the end of the sessions,
below the profit series for the AP and BASE treatments. Inventories
clearly have the effect of reducing prices, but, contrary to static Nash
predictions, rather than improving seller earnings, profits tend to
fall.
The remainder of this section establishes more formally the above
observations, and then considers from less aggregated individual and
market decisions some of the factors driving these results.
B. Evaluation of Conjectures
BASE Markets and Static Predictions. The upper panel of Table 2
lists mean transaction prices, seller profits, and consumer surplus
extraction rates for the BASE treatment, both for the 40 periods common
to all markets, and for the last 20 common periods (periods 21-40).
Examining these outcomes in light of the static Nash predictions printed
in the top row of the panel reveals that tacit collusion powerfully
affects results. Mean transaction prices and profits exceed static Nash
predictions, while consumer surplus falls below static Nash predictions.
All differences are significant (e.g., p < .05) using a Wilcoxon
test. This is a first result.
FINDING 1. Static Nash predictions organize BASE treatment outcomes
poorly because BASE markets are less competitive than predicted.
Transaction prices and earnings significantly exceed static Nash
predictions and consumer surplus falls significantly below the static
Nash prediction.
AP Markets and Static Predictions. The middle panel of Table 2
reports mean price, profit, and consumer surplus results for the AP
markets. In contrast to BASE treatment results, static Nash reference
predictions organize mean outcomes for the AP treatment quite well. As
suggested by the absence of "a"s, in the middle panel, neither
transaction prices, profits, nor consumer surplus extraction rates
differ significantly from static AP predictions. Further, over the last
20 periods, predicted and observed mean outcomes overlap almost exactly.
Finally, as indicated by the "b"s in the middle panel of Table
2, transaction prices significantly exceed and consumer surplus
significantly falls below reference BASE predictions. These outcomes are
also both consistent with Conjecture 2. Combined, these observations
form a second result.
FINDING 2. Static Nash predictions organize mean outcomes in the AP
treatment quite well. Further, relative to BASE reference predictions,
mean transactions prices increase and consumer surplus falls in the AP
markets. INV Markets and Static Predictions. The bottom panel of Table 2
illustrates mean transaction prices, profits, and consumer surplus
extraction rates for the INV markets (assuming the limiting case,
[delta] = 1.00). (12) Comparing INV market results relative to MPE
reference predictions indicates clearly the significantly less
competitive than predicted nature of INV markets. As indicated by the
"i"s, in the bottom panel, mean transaction prices and profits
fall significantly below and consumer surplus significantly exceeds MPE
predictions.
Despite the failure of MPE predictions to organize INV market
outcomes, inventories do affect markets relative to BASE and AP
reference predictions in some important respects. As indicated by the
"b"s and "a"s, in the bottom panel of Table 2, the
lower than predicted prices and the higher than predicted consumer
surplus extraction rates in the INV markets actually reinforce predicted
static differences between the INV markets and their AP and BASE
counterparts.
On the other hand, contrary to equilibrium predictions, profit
outcomes for the INV treatment fall not only below MPE predictions, but
also significantly below the (lower) predicted levels for the BASE and
AP treatments as well. The prominent effects of inventories relative
both to MPE predictions for the INV treatment and static Nash
predictions for the BASE and AP treatments represents a third result.
FINDING 3. MPE predictions organize outcomes in the INV treatment
poorly because INV markets are more competitive than predicted. Although
allowing sellers to inventory unsold units reduces prices and increases
consumer surplus relative to static predictions for BASE and AP markets,
inventories do not yield a Pareto improvement because seller profits
fall.
Tacit Collusion and Comparative Static Effects. The significantly
higher than predicted mean transaction prices and profits for the BASE
treatment illustrate unambiguously a propensity for tacit collusion in
BASE duopolies. At the same time, the conformity of AP market outcomes
with static Nash predictions, and the generally less competitive than
predicted outcomes in the INV markets reflect a tendency for the
institutional modifications in the AP and INV treatments to undermine
this propensity toward tacit collusion. This support for Conjecture 4 is
a fourth finding.
FINDING 4. Tacit collusion powerfully affects outcomes in BASE
duopolies. The addition of advance production undermines this propensity
for tacit collusion observed in BASE markets. The further addition of a
simple inventory option yields more competitive than predicted prices
and profits.
The observed rank ordering of tacit collusion in the INV, AP, and
BASE treatments was as predicted in the discussion following Conjecture
4. As the across-treatment differences shown in columns 1 and 3 of Table
3 summarize, these dynamic effects increase the difference between the
INV treatment and other treatments and diminish the difference between
the BASE and AP treatments. While neither mean transaction prices nor
consumer surplus extraction rates differ significantly across the AP and
BASE treatments, prices are significantly higher and consumer surplus
extraction rates are significantly lower in both the BASE and AP
treatments than in the INV treatment.
Turning to the earnings data, listed in column 2 of Table 3 note
from the AP-BASE comparison in the upper panel of the table that BASE
market profits significantly exceed AP market profits. It is this
difference that distinguishes the tacitly collusive behavior from Nash
play: despite the similarity in prices, BASE markets are more
profitable. Moving down the column observe further that seller profits
in the 1NV markets fall significantly below the BASE markets both
overall and for the last 20 periods, and significantly below the AP
markets for the last 20 periods. The earnings differences between the
INV and BASE treatments are unsurprising given the less competitive than
predicted behavior in the BASE markets and the more competitive than
predicted behavior in the INV markets. More notable are the profit
differences between the INV and AP markets over periods 21-40, because
over those periods AP markets followed static Nash predictions quite
closely. The more competitive than predicted outcomes in the INV markets
were not only strong enough to draw earnings under MPE predictions, but
to levels even below static AP outcomes, where sellers simply bear the
costs of unsold units.
C. Analysis of Individual Decisions
A less aggregated presentation of decisions provides insight into
the behavioral factors underlying Findings 1-4. As can be readily seen
from the price posting densities for the BASE, AP, and INV treatments,
shown in panels A-C of Figure 5, the predicted equilibrium price distributions do a poor job organizing pricing decisions not only in the
BASE treatment, but in the AP and INV treatments as well. (13,14) In all
treatments, sellers tend to focus price choices on 25 cents nodes, and
place particular weight on the even-dollar $6 and $5 prices. In the INV
treatment, sellers also price frequently at $4. Observe further in each
panel that densities for the last 20 common periods (the dark bars)
closely parallel pricing densities overall (the light bars), suggesting
no obvious tendency for price choices to decay toward behavior that
would be more consistent with randomization over the predicted
continuous pricing distribution.
Looking across panels observe that pricing decisions within
treatments exhibit some distinguishing features not evident from the
earlier discussion based on treatment means. Comparing panels (a)and
(b)notice that advance production tends to increase price dispersion relative to the BASE treatment density at both the upper $6.00 mode and
at the lower $3.50 and $4.00 modes rise in the AP treatment. (The
density at $6.00 increases from about 30% of price choices in the BASE
treatment to roughly 38% of price choices in the AP treatment.
Similarly, the combined density weights at $3.50 and $4.00 increase from
slightly above 8% in the BASE treatment to approximately 16% (overall)
in the AP treatment.) Although AP sellers tended to choose $6.00 more
frequently than is consistent with NE mixing distribution, the increased
frequency of price choices at $6.00 in the AP treatment is both
consistent with predicted changes in the underlying equilibrium pricing
distributions and has some intuitive appeal. Posting at the upper limit
price is a riskless way for AP sellers to maximize minimum earnings, if
they also confine output to a single unit (as they did some 83% of the
time). (15) The increased density at $3.50 in the AP treatment also has
some at least immediate intuitive appeal, because such a posting offers
a riskless way to offer and sell two units. Observe in panel B of Figure
5 that with experience, density at the $3.50 mode falls as sellers
realize that they can increase earnings with higher prices.
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
Pricing densities for the INV treatment, in panel C of Figure 5,
vary still more distinctly from behavior in either the AP or the BASE
treatments, with considerably less density at $6.00 and increased
density at $3.50, as is consistent with the change from the NE
predictions for the BASE and AP treatments to the MPE prediction
relevant for the INV treatment. Nevertheless, MPE predictions also
largely fail to organize the empirical pricing densities. INV sellers
posted the joint-maximizing price far more frequently than predicted
(21% of observed decisions vs. the MPE prediction of 6%). Further,
rather than clearing inventories at a price of $3.50 as frequently as
predicted, sellers focus on the somewhat higher prices, particularly on
$4.00, which accounted for some 17% of postings. We summarize these
observations as a first comment.
COMMENT 1. Static Nash and MP equilibrium mixing distributions
generally fail to organize pricing decisions in our duopolies. Contrary
to equilibrium mixing predictions sellers focus price choices on even 50
cents price nodes. Further, in each treatment the frequency of choices
at the upper limit price exceeds the pertinent equilibrium prediction.
Despite some movement of price choices across treatments in
directions consistent with changes in the relevant equilibrium
predictions, the strong modes at the upper bound of the pricing
distribution in each treatment suggest that tacit collusion, and the
effects of alterations in production and inventory decisions on the
success of tacit collusion may provide a more useful perspective for
gaining some insight into results than static NE and MPE mixing
distributions. In the remainder of this subsection, we consider how
changes in production conditions and product durability affect
sellers' capacities to tacitly collude.
As an initial observation regarding tacit collusion, note that we
rarely observed coordinated activity of the type that raises concern
among antitrust authorities. Consider Table 4, which summarizes the
incidences of two standard indicators of tacit collusion, (a) the
percentage of instances where sellers posted identical supra-competitive
prices in consecutive periods, and (b)the percentage instances where
sellers repeated a pattern of posting high then low supra-competitive
prices (as would be consistent with a collusive scheme to rotate
quantities). (16,17) As is clear from entries in Table 4, the evidence
for such organized behavior is generally quite weak. Notice in
particular outcomes for the BASE treatment, where prices most strongly
exceeded Nash predictions. In this treatment, sellers coordinated on
neither prices nor quantities in more than 5% of possible instances.
Rather than obvious coordination, less structured activity drives
the tacitly collusive outcomes observed in our duopolies. The summary
information on individual markets in each treatment reported in Table 5
provide some insight into these informal arrangements. (18) The high
variability of outcomes within treatments represents perhaps the most
immediate result from perusing Table 5A-C. For example, from the mean
transactions prices shown in column 1 of the table, observe that in each
treatment the range of outcomes varies by at least $1.13, or roughly
half of the competitive to joint-maximizing price range (e.g., $1.25).
In addition to this heterogeneity, all treatments exhibit other
common features. In particular, notice from the aggregate entry below
the "T1" measure in column 2 of the table that sellers tended
to select a modal price choice frequently--about 30% of the time in each
treatment (28%, 31%, and 29% of price choices for the BASE, AP, and INV
treatments, respectively). Even beyond the modal choice, sellers tended
to restrict attention to a fairly narrow sent of prices. As seen by
aggregate entries below the "T4" measure in column 3 of the
table, sellers picked among just four prices about 60% of the time in
each treatment (59%, 61%, and 63% of price choices in BASE, AP, and INV
treatments, respectively).
A third similarity across treatments regards the propensity for
sellers to attempt to unilaterally raise prices by acting as a
"price leader." To measure sellers' propensities toward
price leadership, we calculate for each seller a "[p.sub.I]"
index, which reflects the percentage of periods in which a seller posted
a price that either strictly exceeded the maximum price posted in the
preceding period, or weakly exceeded the $6.00 buyer limit value. The
"[p.sub.lmax]" values reported in column 4 of Table 5 are the
higher of the [p.sub.l] values for the two sellers in each duopoly.
Looking at averages for the [P.sub.lmax] values shown at the bottom of
column 5 in the table, observe that the propensity for leadership varies
little across treatments. In each treatment, the strongest leader tended
to "lead" in about half of the periods. (Mean [p.sub.lmax]
values are 0.53, 0.51, and 0.47 for the BASE, AP, and INV treatments,
respectively.)
Consider now the sort of informal activities that sellers might
pursue to raise prices. One natural candidate explanation is that some
sellers make unilateral efforts to raise prices. Although the overall
propensity toward such leadership does not vary importantly across
treatments, we do note that within treatments the relationship between
[p.sub.lmax] values and prices does vary. To see this we classify as
"very collusive" mean transaction prices in the upper quarter
of the feasible price range (e.g., prices between $5.37 and $6.00). (19)
Observe in panel A of Table 5 that three of the four very collusive BASE
sessions had [P.sub.lmax] values of 0.41 or below. In contrast, in panel
B of Table 5, notice that both of the highly collusive AP markets (AP13
and AP14) had a strong price-leading seller, as reflected by the
[P.sub.lmax] values of 0.85 and 0.74 for these markets, respectively. No
highly cooperative outcomes were observed in the INV treatment. Notice
further, however, that for the INV sessions with the most consistent
price leaders (sessions INV4 and INV9, with respective [p.sub.lmax]
values of 0.79 and 0.77), mean prices were not even in the upper half of
the price space (e.g., mean transaction prices were below $4.75, at
$4.73 and $4.43). In summary then, in our experiment, successful tacit
collusion in the AP treatment occurs only with strong price leadership.
In the BASE treatment, successful tacit collusion occurs both with and
without strong price leadership, while in the INV treatment we never
observe successful tacit collusion, even with strong price leadership.
(20)
A second type of unstructured behavior that has been associated
with high prices in other experimental oligopolies is a sort of
"weak cooperation" in which sellers undercut each other
frequently, but by small amounts, and also frequently raise prices. (21)
In the present context evidence of such weak cooperation is a
combination of a high mean transaction price, a low [P.sub.lmax], and a
small "spread" or a small average difference between the high
and low price each period.
Examining mean transaction prices and [p.sub.lmax] values in
conjunction with the mean price spreads listed in column 5 of Table 5
allows identification of instances of such weak cooperation. Observe
that in the highly cooperative BASE sessions, spread values tend to be
quite small (32 cents or less in three of four instances) despite low
[p.sub.lmax] values in three instances, suggesting that "weak
cooperation" explains tacit collusion in these markets. (22) In
contrast, in the AP treatment, no mean spread of less than 70 cents was
observed absent a strong price leader. Observe finally that in the two
INV markets with the highest [p.sub.lmax] values (INV4 and INV9) mean
spreads were extremely large, at $1.63 in each case.
Looking at the average of mean price spread values for each
treatment in the bottom rows of panels A-C of Table 5, observe that the
price spread increases from 68 cents in the BASE treatment to 84 cents
in AP treatment and then to 97 cents in the INV treatment. The
increasing size of the spread in moving from the BASE to the AP and then
to the INV treatments is consistent with a perceived increasing risk to
sellers of following a price lead. In the BASE treatment, a seller
shading under a standing price foregoes only the opportunity cost of
selling a second unit in the case that her rival discounts still more
deeply. In the AP treatment, a seller who posts a price below $6.00 and
offers two units bears the risk of producing a unit that may go unsold.
Unless the seller is quite confident that his/her rival is a
"strong leader" (as in AP13 and API4), he/she will offer a
somewhat lower price relative to the BASE treatment to increase the
chances of selling the second unit. In the INV treatment, this spread
increases still further, because a seller does not observe his/her
rival's inventories. A rival who posted a high price in the
previous period may or may not have produced a single unit. In the event
that a high pricing rival offered two units, he/she will carry forward
at least one unit of inventory, in which case a seller will sell nothing
in the current period unless he/she either posts the lowest price in the
current period or posts the competitive price of $3.50.
A related consequence of changes in production conditions and
product durability on pricing activity regards the price that sellers
use as a primary reference. Looking at column 6 of Table 5, notice that
in the BASE treatment the modal price choice was either $6.00 or $5.99
in ten instances and $5.75 in an 11th market. Similarly, in the AP
treatment, the modal price was either $6.00 or $5.99 in 12 instances. In
the INV treatment, however, either $6.00 or $5.99 was the modal choice
in only seven markets. In the remaining eight INV markets, $5.00 was a
modal choice once, followed by $4.00 in three instances and $3.50 in
four instances. The propensity for sellers to adopt a lower reference
price in the INV treatment is likely attributable to the same factors
that drive high price spreads in that treatment. Sellers in the INV
treatment do not observe the inventory status of their rivals. A seller
is less likely to try "leading" if she is uncertain to sell at
least a single unit.
A simple OLS regression estimating for each treatment the effects
of price leadership, the mean price spread and the modal price choice on
mean transaction prices provides a succinct way to summarize the above
observations regarding the differential effects of production and
product durability on tacit collusion. Table 6 reports the pertinent
regression results. Looking first at the bottom of the table, observe
that the [[bar.R].sup.2] for each treatment estimate is at least 0.65,
indicating that in each case these three variables explain nearly
two-thirds of the movement in mean transaction prices. Moving up rows to
the last of the coefficient estimates, notice next that in all
treatments, the modal price is a significant explainer of the mean
transaction price, with coefficients of comparable magnitude in each
case (30 cents, 22 cents, and 26 cents for the BASE, AP, and INV
regressions, respectively). However, in the BASE treatment summarized in
column 1 observe that only the mean spread estimate also deviates
significantly from zero (because high prices occur in this treatment
both with and without price leadership), while in the AP treatment
summarized in column 2, only the coefficient on price leadership is also
significant (because high prices occurred in this treatment only with a
strong leader). Finally, for the INV treatment summarized in column 3
neither price leadership nor the mean price spread significantly affect
mean transaction prices.
We summarize as a second comment the above observations regarding
tacit collusion.
COMMENT 2. Advance production and an inventory option impede implementation of the varieties of informal tacit collusion that
occurred in our markets. In the BASE treatment, either strong price
leadership or nonaggressive price competition may support tacit
collusion. In the AP treatment, the only tacitly collusive outcomes
observed occurred with strong price leadership. In the INV treatment,
successful tacit collusion was not observed even given a strong price
leader.
VI. CONCLUDING REMARKS
This paper reports an experiment conducted to evaluate the
behavioral consequences of adding advance production and then inventory
carryover on market power in a Bertrand-Edgeworth duopoly. Results
indicate that, relative to a baseline condition, advance production
yields lower profits, while the further addition of a simple inventory
option lowers both profits and prices. Although aggregate results for
the advance production treatment match quite well the central moments of
the pertinent static Nash equilibrium mixing distribution, closer
consideration of price choices suggests that markets in this treatment,
as well as those in the other treatments are more usefully viewed in
terms of seller efforts to tacitly collude.
The tacit collusion we observe in our duopolies does not take on
the sort of obvious coordination that is typically the focus of concern
to antitrust authorities. Rather, we observe two informal types of
cooperation: (a) a single seller acts as a strong price leader and (b)
both sellers engage in a sort of "weak cooperation," where the
sellers undercut each other frequently, but reduce prices by fairly
small margins, and also often raise prices. The changes in production
conditions and product durability that are the focus of this
investigation affect the success of these arrangements. In our BASE
treatment, both price leadership and "weak cooperation" can
elicit high prices. Given advance production, only strong price
leadership elicits high prices. Finally in the INV treatment, neither
strong price leadership nor weak cooperation generate high prices.
Importantly, we do not claim from our results that an inventory
option eliminates tacit collusion, that advance production eliminates
"weak cooperation" as a method of tacit collusion, or even
that the types of organized arrangements that are typically the focus of
antitrust attention, such as common prices or quantity rotations will
not be observed in the laboratory. With increased repetition sellers in
all of our treatments may find ways to generate higher prices. (23)
Further, design alterations, such as a finer quantity grid, may
facilitate more obvious varieties of seller coordination. (24)
Our results do, however, suggest that the alterations in the
standard Bertrand-Edgeworth game investigated here can very prominently
affect both static equilibrium predictions for such markets, and
behavioral outcomes as well. Advance production and inventory are common
elements of many naturally occurring contexts that policymakers might
feel inclined to overlook in applying a model to a particular natural
context. Our results suggest that glossing over such modifications can
very substantially affect the predictive capacity of these models.
Further investigation of the consequences of advance production and
inventories on market performance is clearly warranted.
ABBREVIATIONS
MPE: Markov Perfect Equilibrium
NE: Nash Equilibrium
OLS: Ordinary Least Squares
doi: 10.1111/j.1465-7295.2011.00388.x
REFERENCES
Brandts, J., and P. Guillen. "Collusion and Fights in Price
Setting Firms with Advance Production." Journal of Industrial
Economics, 55, 2007, 453-73.
Carleton, D. W., and J. M. Perloff. Modern Industrial Organization.
4th ed. Boston: Pearson, 2005.
Coase, R. H. "Durability and Monopoly." Journal of Law
and Economics, 15, 1972, 143-49.
Dal Bo, P., and G. R. Frechette, "The Evolution of Cooperation
in Infinitely Repeated Games: Experimental Evidence." American
Economic Review, 101, 2011, 411-29.
Davidson, C., and R. Deneckere. "Long-Run Competition in
Capacity, Short-Run Competition in Price, and the Cournot Model."
RAND Journal of Economics, 17, 1986, 404-15.
Davis, D. D. "Pure Numbers Effects, Market Power, and Tacit
Collusion in Posted Offer Markets." Journal of Economic Behavior
and Organization, 72, 2009, 475-88.
Davis, D. D., and C. A. Holt. "Market Power and Mergers in
Laboratory Markets with Posted Prices." RAND Journal of Economics,
25, 1994, 467-87.
Davis, D. D., and B. J. Wilson. "Cost Savings and Market Power
Exercise." Economic Theory, 16, 2000, 545-65.
Davis, D.D., C.A. Holt, and A.P. Villamil. "Supra-Competitive
Prices and Market Power in Posted-Offer Markets," in Experiments
Investigating Market Power, Research in Experimental Economics, Vol. 9,
edited by R. M. Isaac, and C. A. Holt. Amsterdam: JAI Press, 2002,
121-38.
Davis, D. D., O. Korenok, and R. J. Reilly. "Cooperation
without Coordination: Signaling, Types and Tacit Collusion in Laboratory
Oligopolies." Experimental Economics, 13, 2010, 45-65.
Dufwenberg, M., and U. Gneezy. "Price Competition and Market
Concentration: An Experimental Study." International Journal of
Industrial Organization, 18, 2000, 7-22.
Forsythe, R., T. Palfrey, and C. R. Plott. "Asset Valuation in
an Experimental Market." Econometrica, 50, 1982, 537-67.
Fouraker, L. E., and S. Siegel. Bargaining Behavior. New York:
McGraw Hill, 1963.
Friedman, D., G. Harrison, and J. W. Salmon. "The
Informational Efficiency of Experimental Asset Markets." Journal of
Political Economy, 92, 1984, 349-408.
Fudenberg, D., and J. Tirole. Game Theory. Cambridge: MIT Press,
1991.
Fudenberg, D., D. Levine, and J. Tirole. "Infinite-Horizon
Models of Bargaining with One-Sided Incomplete Information." Game
Theoretic Models of Bargaining, edited by A. Roth. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1985.
Gul, F., H. Sonnenschein, and R. Wilson. "Foundations of
Dynamic Monopoly and the Coase Conjecture." Journal of Economic
Theory, 29, 1986, 155-90.
Hoffman, E., and C. A. Plott. "The Effect of Intertemporal
Speculation on the Outcomes in Seller Posted Offer Auction
Markets." Quarterly Journal of Economics, 96, 1981, 223-41.
Kreps, D., and J. Scheinkman. "Cournot Precommitment and
Bertrand Competition Yield Cournot Outcomes." Bell Journal of
Economics, 14, 1983, 326-77.
Kruse, J. B., S. Rassenti, S. S. Reynolds, and V. L. Smith.
"Bertrand-Edgeworth Competition in Experimental Markets."
Econometrica, 62, 1994, 343-71.
Levitan, R., and M. Shubik. "Duopoly with Price and Quantity
as Strategic Variables." International Journal of Game Theory, 7,
1978, 1-11.
Mestelman, S., and J. D. Welland. "Advance Production in
Experimental Markets." Review of Economic Studies, 55, 1988,
641-54.
--. "Inventory Carryover and the Performance of Alternative
Market Institutions." Southern Economic Journal, 57, 1991, 1024-42.
Mestelman, S., D. Welland, and J. D. Welland. "Advance
Production in Posted Offer Markets." Journal of Economic Behavior
and Organization, 8, 1987, 249-64.
Miller, R., C.R. Plott, and V. L. Smith. "Intertemporal
Competitive Equilibrium: An Empirical Study of Speculation."
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 91, 1977, 599-624.
Reynolds, S. Durable Goods Monopoly: Multiple Buyers with
Independent Values. University of Arizona: Manuscript, 1997.
--. "Durable-Goods Monopoly: Laboratory Market and Bargaining
Experiments." RAND Journal of Economics, 31, 2000, 375-94.
Shubik, M. "A Comparison of Treatments of a Duopoly Problem
(Part II)." Econometrica, 23, 1955, 417-31.
Smith, V. L., G. L. Suchanek, and A. W. Williams. "Bubbles
Crashes and Endogeneous Expectations in Experimental Spot Asset
Markets." Econometrica, 56, 1988, 1119-51.
Sobel, J., and I. Takahashi. "A Multistage Model of
Bargaining." Review of Economic Studies, 50, 1983, 411-26.
Stokey, N. L. "Rational Expectations and Durable Goods
Pricing." Bell Journal of Economics, 12, 1981, 112-28.
Tasnadi, A. "Production in Advance versus Production to
Order." Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 54, 2004,
191-204.
U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. Horizontal
Merger Guidelines, 1997.
Williams, A., and V. L. Smith. "Cyclical Double Auction
Markets with and without Speculators." Journal of Business, 57,
1984, 1-33.
Wilson, B. J. "What Collusion? Unilateral Market Power as a
Catalyst for Countercyclical Markups." Experimental Economics, 1,
1998, 133-45.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online
version of this article:
APPENDIX S1. The Calculation of Mean Expected Transaction Prices,
Profits, and Consumer Surplus.
APPENDIX S2. A Markov Perfect Equilibrium for the INV Game.
APPENDIX S3. Friedman Coefficient Calculations for the BASE, AP,
and INV Games.
APPENDIX S4. Summary Information for Markets, Periods 21-40.
APPENDIX S5. Price and Quantity Offerings for Individual Markets.
(1.) Capacity constraints are the only way to model noncompetitive
pricing as a static equilibrium in a full-information
homogeneous-product price-setting market. Other variations, such as
indefinite repetition, incomplete information and product
differentiation may also generate supra-competitive equilibrium prices
in price-setting games. Alternatively, in homogeneous product quantity
setting Cournot games equilibrium prices increase above costs as the
number of sellers falls (Carleton and Perloff 2005, ch. 6 and 7).
(2.) Both price and quantity are decision variables in an important
branch of the Bertrand-Edgeworth literature that focuses on long-run
competition. In this literature, however, price and quantity decisions
are sequential rather than simultaneous, with quantity (e.g., plant
size) decisions preceding price choices. Given efficient rationing,
Kreps and Scheinkman (1983) and others show that the Cournot equilibrium
is outcome of such a sequential quantity then price choice process.
Davidson and Deneckere (1986) and others show that other rationing rules
yield lower prices and higher quantities in equilibrium.
(3.) The formal analysis of monopoly pricing for durable goods
focuses primarily on two cases. One case has a continuum of buyers who
are individually unable to influence the market by withholding purchases. See Stokey (1981) and Gul, Sonnenschein, and Wilson (1986).
The other case has the seller facing a single buyer, whose value is a
random draw unknown by the seller in advance. Pertinent papers include
Sobel and Takahashi (1983) and Fudenberg, Levine, and Tirole (1985).
With some qualifications, the Coase conjecture holds in both cases.
Reynolds (1997) shows that the Coase conjecture can also hold in an
intermediate case involving a finite number of sellers whose value draws
are randomly drawn and unknown to the seller.
(4.) Experiments featuring product durability include designs
constructed to examine speculative pricing bubbles and information
aggregation in asset markets. See, for example, the studies of Smith,
Suchanek, and Williams (1988), Forsythe, Palfrey, and Plott (1982), and
Friedman, Harrison, and Salmon (1984). Product durability is also a
feature of designs that investigate the capacity of
"'middlemen" to improve the efficiency of seasonally
cyclical markets. Relevant papers here include that of Hoffman and Plott
(1981), Miller, Plott, and Smith (1977), and Williams and Smith (1984).
(5.) The expected mean transaction price is the quantity weighted
expected maximum and expected price, or E([[bar.P].sub.T]) =
[E([p.sub.max]) + 2E([p.sub.min])]/3. Simulating with n = 40,000 ordered
pairs, E([P.sub.max])= $5.09 and E([p.sub.min])= $4.46. Supporting
information Appendix S 1.1 reports details for simulating E([p.sub.max])
and E([p.sub.min]) for the BASE treatment.
(6.) Again simulating with n = 40,000 ordered pairs, E([p.sub.max]
= $5.64 and E([p.sub.min]) = $4.84, making the expected the transaction
price [[bar.P].sub.AT] = $5.11. Supporting information Appendix S1.2
reports details of the procedure for simulating maximum and minimum
prices for the AP treatment. Parallel to calculations for the BASE
treatment, seller earnings are security profits of $4.00 and consumer
surplus, $2.67= 3([[upsilon].sub.H] - [[bar.P].sub.AT]).
(7.) Fudenberg and Tirole (1991), p. 501. That this analysis
confines dynamic effects to the inter-temporal consequences of
inventories on pricing bears emphasis. In particular, we exclude from
consideration contingent strategies consistent with tacit collusion.
Incentives for tacit collusion in this and the other treatments are
discussed below.
(8.) Inventory accumulation and the possibility of failing to sell
inventoried units drive this sequence. In the first two periods of the
cycle, the high pricing seller sells only one of the two units produced,
leaving her with first one and then two units of inventory. In the third
period, she posts price p = [[upsilon].sub.L] to assure the sale of her
inventoried units.
(9.) The pertinent calculations for these coefficients are
developed in supporting information Appendix S3. Intuitively, incentives
to tacitly collude in the AP treatment weaken relative to the BASE
treatment because the present value of deviating from the quantity
rotation strategy needed to support symmetric joint profit maximizing
tacit collusion in the AP treatment is somewhat Dower than in the BASE
treatment, where sellers can simply offer both units at the limit price
each period and rely on the buyer purchasing procedure to allocate the
odd unit. The increased profitability of the non-cooperative MPE
relative to the BASE and AP treatments further weakens incentives to
cooperate in the INV treatment.
(10.) Our combination of a definite number of initial periods
followed by an indefinite number of periods using a probabilistic
stopping rule creates some indeterminacy in the appropriate reference
predictions for the 1NV treatment, because [delta] is essentially 1 for
periods 1-40 and then falls to 0.90 thereafter. Had we used a constant
continuation probability in all periods, we would have achieved more
precision in predictions, and (with relatively small [delta]) larger
differences in predicted outcomes across treatments. Such an approach
however, would have made it impossible to create an experience profile
for the INV treatment that paralleled those in the BASE and AP
treatments, because the distribution of expected session lengths is so
highly skewed. For example, using a continuation of probability of
[delta] = 0.95 yields a mean expected session length of only 20 periods.
Further, only about 63% of sessions will have at least 20 periods. At
the same time, the expected maximum session length in a sample of 15
sessions is almost 60 periods, and in many instances will exceed 90
periods. Higher [delta]'s yield still greater variability in
expected session lengths.
(11.) All markets in each session were terminated at the same time
via a single application of the stopping distribution. Session lengths
ranged from 42 to 57 periods, and averaged 49 periods.
(12.) As illustrated in Table 1, to the extent that the effective
discount factor is below 1, mean transaction prices fall, seller
earnings fall, and consumer surplus increases. All differences shown in
the bottom row of Table 2 remain significant with [delta] = 0.9.
(13.) The predicted density for the INV treatment shown in Figure
5C is a weighted average of densities for the three stages of the MPE.
(14.) Regressing individual price choices against own and other
price choices in the immediately preceding period represents a standard
way to show that sellers fail to randomize in laboratory
Bertrand-Edgeworth oligopolies. Behavior is inconsistent with
randomization if coefficients on either own or other previous price
choices differ significantly from zero. Consistent with results of
similar analyses in related contexts, such as Davis and Holt (1994), and
Kruse et al. (1994), these coefficients are both large and significant
for each of our duopoly treatments. We focus in the text on pricing
densities to illustrate other features of pricing decisions inconsistent
with randomization.
(15.) This aggregate percentage includes instances of q = 1 and p =
$5.99 in markets AP10 and API4, where $5.99 was effectively the limit
price for sellers. In these two markets, sellers posted $6.00 a total of
four instances, while they posted $5.99 in a total of 58 instances.
Also, the bulk of instances where a sellers offered two units at the
limit price occurred in a single instance (market AP13), where a single
seller posted a price of $6.00 in 29 of 40 periods, but restricted
output only three times. Excluding market API3, the average rate at
which sellers restrict quantity when posting the limit price is 90%.
(16.) Denoting the price of seller j in period i as [p.sub.ji],
"consecutive periods of identical supra-competitive prices"
are periods i - 1 and i where, [p.sub.li-i] = [p.sub.2i-1] and
[p.sub.1i] = [p.sub.2i]. "Instances of repeated supra-competitive
price rotations" are instances where (a) all prices strictly exceed
Pc, and (b) a "high-low" price cycle is repeated at least
once, for example, [P.sub.1i] > [p.sub.2i], [p.sub.2i-1],
[p.sub.1i-2], [p.sub.2i-2], [p.sub.1i-3], > [p.sub.2i-3].
(17.) The patterns summarized in Table 4 are the sorts of organized
behaviors that are the primary focus of antitrust authorities. See,
e.g., the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission
Horizontal Merger Guidelines, Section 2.1. The failure of sellers in
"tacitly collusive" price-setting laboratory markets to engage
in obviously organized behavior has been observed previously. See, in
particular, Davis (2009).
(18.) For purposes of brevity, Table 5 presents averages based on
the 40 periods common to all markets. All of the observations made in
the text from this table are robust to the use of periods 21-40, as can
be verified by inspection of Tables S9, S10, and S11 in supporting
information Appendix S4. For the interested reader, we also provide in
supporting information Appendix S5 price and quantity sequences for each
market. Finally, and again for brevity we assess sellers"
propensity toward tacit collusions only in terms of mean transaction
prices and not profits. Within treatments mean profits, are very highly
correlated with transaction prices and add little extra information. For
example, for the respective BASE, AP, and INV treatments, the simple
correlation between mean transaction prices and profits are 0.99, 0.92,
and 0.81.
(19.) This definition of a "very collusive" price range
is offered only for purposes of specificity. As can be verified from
inspection of Table 5, our observations are qualitatively resilient to
wide variations in this definition.
(20.) We are not, however, arguing that strong price leadership is
sufficient for high prices in any treatment. Notice for example, BASE13.
Here the mean transactions price is only $5.09, despite one seller
acting as a price leader in 90% of the trading periods. That said, the
strong leader in this session was ultimately able to raise prices toward
the end of the session. Over periods 21-40 the mean transaction price in
BASE13 rose to $5.54. A more expansive presentation of market results
for periods 21-40 appears in supporting information Appendix $4.
(21.) See, for example, Davis, Korenok, and Reilly (2010). The
notion of "weak cooperation" is admittedly somewhat elusive.
Davis, Korenok, and Reilly provide evidence suggesting that a propensity
for such behavior persists within individuals across sessions. Dal B6
and Frechette (2011) study the evolution of cooperation in a
prisoners' dilemma context and similarly find the phenomenon
difficult to isolate. They do observe, however, that observation of
cooperation early in a game tends to increase overall cooperation
levels, a result consistent with the notion that agents decide on the
basis of initial play how much to "invest" in cooperation.
(22.) In market BASE15, the mean spread is somewhat larger, at 59
cents. The relatively larger mean spread in this market is attributable
to a relatively small number of instances where a seller made deep price
cuts, perhaps in an effort to "punish" his rival for cutting
prices too deeply. For example, eliminating the five periods with the
largest spreads reduces the average to 47 cents.
(23.) Indeed, in one INV session (market INV15) sellers did
coordinate on the limit price over the last seven periods. See
supporting information Appendix S5 for an illustration of the sequence
of price postings in this session.
(24.) Brandts and Guillen (2007) observe many instances where
sellers share the market by posting the limit prices. One important
difference between the Brandts and Guillen design and the one used here
is the considerably finer grid of quantity choices available to sellers
in their design.
DOUGLAS D. DAVIS *
* Thanks for helpful comments to Asen Ivanov, Oleg Korenok, Robert
Reilly, Roger Sherman, associate editor Yan Chen, and two anonymous
referees. The usual disclaimer applies. Thanks also to Matthew Nuckols
for software development and to Michael Brown for help in conducting the
laboratory sessions. Financial assistance from the National Science
Foundation (SES 1034527) and the Virginia Commonwealth University Summer
Research Grants Program is gratefully acknowledged. Instructions,
experimental data, and appendices are available at
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~dddavis.
Davis: Professor, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond VA
23284-4000. Phone 1-804-828-7140, Fax 1804-828-9103, E-mail
dddavis@vcu.edu
TABLE 1
Static Equilibrium Predictions and Friedman
Coefficient Values
Treatment (1) [[bar.p].sub.T] (2) [bar.[pi]]
BASE $4.67 $4.00
AP $5.11 $4.00
INV ([delta] = 1.00) $4.63 (4.28) (b) $4.70
INV ([delta] = 0.90) $4.51 ($4.20) (b) $4.51
Treatment (3) CS (4) [delta] * (c)
BASE $4.00 0.50
AP $2.67 0.62
INV ([delta] = 1.00) $4.11 0.69
INV ([delta] = 0.90) $4.47 0.69
(a) Simulated in each case with n = 40, 000 pairs of
observations.
(b) Mean transaction price per unit. The (parenthetical)
mean transaction price per unit is lower than the mean
transaction price per period because of the increased sales
volume in the low pricing periods.
(c) Friedman coefficient values ([delta] *]) report the minimum
discount factor necessary to support tacit collusion at the
joint-maximizing outcome with a threat to respond to any
defection by with a permanent reversion to the static Nash
equilibrium. For details of these calculations, see supporting
information Appendix S3.
TABLE 2
Market Outcomes and Nash Predictions
Variable [[bar.p].sub.T] [[bar.[pi]] CS
BASE
Nash prediction 4.67 4.00 4.00
All 5.18 (b) 4.77 (ba) 2.46 (bi)
Periods 21-40 5.28 (bb) 4.91 (ba) 2.16 (bi)
AP
Nash prediction 5.11 4.00 2.67
All 4.96 (bi) 3.91 (i) 3.06 (bi)
Periods 21-40 5.11 (bi) 4.08 (i) 2.65 (bi)
INV
Nash prediction 4.63 4.70 4.11
All 4.29 (bai) 3.47 (bai)bai 5.13 (bai)
Periods 21-40 4.25 (bai) 3.44 (bai) 5.26 (bai)
Notes: b's, a's, and i's denote rejection of the null
hypothesis that the variable does not differ from the static
Nash prediction for the BASE, AP, and INV treatments,
respectively (p < .05, two-tailed Wilcoxon tests).
TABLE 3
Differences Across Treatments
(1) [[bar.p].sub.T] (2) [pi] (3) CS
AP-BASE
All -0.22 -0.86 * 0.60
Last 20 -0.17 -0.83 * 0.49
INV-BASE
All -0.89 * -1.30 * 2.67 *
Last 20 -1.03 * -1.48 * 3.10 *
INV-AP
All -0.67 * -0.44 2.07 *
Last 20 -0.86 * -0.64 * 2.61
Notes: Asterisks denote rejection of the null hypothesis
that observed mean outcomes across treatments do not differ
significantly (p < .05, two-tailed Mann-Whitney tests).
TABLE 4
Some Indicators of Tacit Collusion
BASE (%) AP (%) INV (%)
Consecutive periods with identical supra-competitive prices
(% of instances)
All 4 1 1
Last 20 4 1 1
Repeated supra-competitive price rotations
(% of instances)
All 5 6 2
Last 20 4 6 2
TABLE 5
Summary Information for BASE, AP, and INV Markets, Periods 1-40
Market (1) [[bar.p].sub.T] (a) (2) T1 (b) (3) T4 (c)
(A) BASE markets
BASE 1 5.86 0.51 0.83
BASE 2 5.75 0.19 0.41
BASE 11 5.56 0.19 0.46
BASE 15 5.45 0.10 0.35
BASE 7 5.32 0.50 0.69
BASE 3 5.29 0.18 0.51
BASE 6 5.16 0.24 0.65
BASE 13 5.09 0.69 0.93
BASE 12 5.06 0.28 0.68
BASE 9 5.03 0.16 0.38
BASE 10 4.99 0.33 0.55
BASE 4 4.86 0.26 0.74
BASE 5 4.79 0.28 0.73
BASE 14 4.77 0.13 0.29
BASE 8 4.72 0.24 0.71
Averages 5.18 0.28 0.59
(B) AP markets
AP 14 5.89 0.44 0.89
AP 13 5.48 0.53 0.70
AP 9 5.14 0.35 0.76
AP 6 5.12 0.30 0.51
AP 4 5.11 0.26 0.44
AP 10 5.08 0.30 0.53
AP 5 5.03 0.30 0.50
AP 11 4.93 0.36 0.75
AP 12 4.89 0.31 0.50
AP 8 4.85 0.26 0.51
AP 7 4.73 0.20 0.30
AP 3 4.65 0.19 0.58
AP 2 4.30 0.53 0.89
AP 1 4.29 0.29 0.70
Averages 4.96 0.31 0.61
(C) INV markets
INV 13 4.89 0.29 0.58
INV 4 4.73 0.30 0.56
INV 7 4.72 0.23 0.58
INV 12 4.55 0.06 0.21
INV 8 4.49 0.30 0.86
INV 9 4.43 0.36 0.93
INV 15 4.38 0.46 0.84
INV 5 4.34 0.19 0.58
INV 14 4.29 0.30 0.68
INV 3 4.20 0.23 0.64
INV 1 3.97 0.44 0.65
INV 6 3.90 0.29 0.68
INV 11 3.89 0.18 0.48
INV 10 3.87 0.46 0.64
INV 2 3.76 0.24 0.60
Averages 4.29 0.29 0.63
(5) [[bar.p].sub.max]--
Market (4) [p.sub.lmax] (d) [bar.p].sub.min] (e)
(A) BASE markets
BASE 1 0.97 0.20
BASE 2 0.38 0.17
BASE 11 0.41 0.32
BASE 15 0.36 0.59
BASE 7 0.64 1.02
BASE 3 0.64 0.80
BASE 6 0.36 0.59
BASE 13 0.90 0.89
BASE 12 0.41 0.61
BASE 9 0.44 0.95
BASE 10 0.59 1.19
BASE 4 0.51 0.81
BASE 5 0.46 0.66
BASE 14 0.31 0.57
BASE 8 0.51 0.86
Averages 0.53 0.68
(B) AP markets
AP 14 0.85 0.15
AP 13 0.74 0.43
AP 9 0.51 0.91
AP 6 0.51 0.79
AP 4 0.36 0.70
AP 10 0.44 0.81
AP 5 0.51 0.98
AP 11 0.49 1.44
AP 12 0.56 0.83
AP 8 0.38 0.84
AP 7 0.46 0.91
AP 3 0.49 0.95
AP 2 0.38 0.74
AP 1 0.44 1.29
Averages 0.51 0.84
(C) INV markets
INV 13 0.56 0.83
INV 4 0.79 1.63
INV 7 0.33 0.80
INV 12 0.36 0.77
INV 8 0.59 1.19
INV 9 0.77 1.59
INV 15 0.54 1.49
INV 5 0.56 0.58
INV 14 0.46 1.03
INV 3 0.31 1.06
INV 1 0.41 0.73
INV 6 0.33 1.14
INV 11 0.28 0.48
INV 10 0.31 0.69
INV 2 0.38 0.58
Averages 0.47 0.97
Market (6) [P.sub.mode] (f)
(A) BASE markets
BASE 1 6.00
BASE 2 5.99
BASE 11 6.00
BASE 15 5.75
BASE 7 6.00
BASE 3 6.00
BASE 6 6.00
BASE 13 6.00
BASE 12 5.00
BASE 9 6.00
BASE 10 6.00
BASE 4 5.00
BASE 5 4.50
BASE 14 6.00
BASE 8 5.00
Averages 5.68
(B) AP markets
AP 14 5.99
AP 13 6.00
AP 9 6.00
AP 6 6.00
AP 4 6.00
AP 10 5.99
AP 5 6.00
AP 11 6.00
AP 12 6.00
AP 8 6.00
AP 7 6.00
AP 3 6.00
AP 2 3.50
AP 1 3.50
Averages 5.64
(C) INV markets
INV 13 6.00
INV 4 6.00
INV 7 6.00
INV 12 6.00
INV 8 6.00
INV 9 6.00
INV 15 5.99
INV 5 5.00
INV 14 3.50
INV 3 4.00
INV 1 3.50
INV 6 4.00
INV 11 4.00
INV 10 3.50
INV 2 3.50
Averages 4.87
(a) Mean per period transaction price.
(b) Modal price density.
(c) Combined density of the four most frequent price choices.
(d) "Price leadership index," calculated as the percentage of price
choices where the seller with the highest propensity to lead chose a
supra-competitive price that either weakly exceeded $6.00 or was no
lower than the previous period's maximum price.
(e) Mean price spread, or the average difference between the maximum
and the minimum price.
(f) Modal price choice.
TABLE 6
Summary OLS Measures of Mean Transaction
Prices: Coefficients (Standard Errors)
Treatment (1) BASE (2) AP (3) INV
[[beta].sub.o] 3.75 (a) 3.40 (a) 3.01 (a)
(0.63) (0.47) (0.23)
[[beta].sub.plmax] 0.49 1.33 (a) 0.28
(0.30) (0.48) (0.50)
[[beta].sub.Spread] -0.78 (a) -0.41 -0.095
(0.19) (0.20) (0.20)
[[beta].sub.mode] 0.30 (a) 0.22 (a) 0.26 (a)
(0.11) (0.06) (0.06)
N 15 14 15
[[bar.R].sup.]2 0.65 0.81 0.69
F 9.82 (a) 19.31 (a) 11.25 (a)
(a) Reject the null hypothesis that [[beta].sub.i] = 0 at p < .05.