Quantity Competition, Endogenous Motives and Behavioral Heterogeneity

Chirco, Alessandra and Colombo, Caterina and Scrimitore, Marcella (2010): Quantity Competition, Endogenous Motives and Behavioral Heterogeneity.

Abstract

The paper shows that strategic quantity competition can be characterized by behavioral heterogeneity, once competing firms are allowed in a pre-market stage to optimally choose the behavioral rule they will follow in their strategic choice of quantities. In particular, partitions of the population of identical firms in profit maximizers and relative profit maximizers turn out to be deviation-proof equilibria, both in simultaneous and sequential game structures. Our findings that in a strategic framework heterogeneous behavioral rules are consistent with individual incentives provides a game-theoretic microfoundation of heterogeneity.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Behavioral Heterogeneity, Endogenous Motives, Relative Performance, Multistage Games, Quantity Competition.
• Subjects: L - Industrial Organization > L2 - Firm Objectives, Organization, and Behavior > L21 - Business Objectives of the Firm; L - Industrial Organization > L1 - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance > L13 - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets; C - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods > C7 - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory > C72 - Noncooperative Games

References

Choi, K. and Lu, Y. (2009). A model of endogenous payoff motives and endogenous timing in a mixed duopoly. Australian Economic Papers, 48(3), 203-223.

Cyert, R.M. and March, J.G. (1963). A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.

Fershtman, C. and Judd, K.L. (1987). Equilibrium incentives in oligopoly. American Economic Review, 77(5), 926-940.

Friedman, M. (1953), The methodology of positive economics. In M. Friedman, Essays in positive economics (pp. 1-43). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Georgantzís, N., Manasakis, C., Mitrokostas, E., & Petrakis, E. (2008), Strategic delegation in experimental duopolies with endogenous incentive contracts. Working Paper No. 0809, Department of Economics, University of Crete.

Huang, W. (2003). A naive but optimal route to Walrasian behaviour in oligopolies. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52(4), 553-571.

Miller, N. and Pazgal, A. (2002). Relative performance as a strategic commitment mechanism. Managerial and Decision Economics, 23(2), 51-68.

Marris, R. (1964). The Economic Theory of `Managerial' Capitalism. London: Macmillan.

Nagel R. and Vriend, N.J. (1999). An experimental study of adaptive behavior in an oligopolistic market game. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 9(1), 27-65.

Offerman, T., Potters, J. and Sonnemans, J. (2002). Imitation and belief learning in an oligopoly experiment. The Review of Economic Studies, 69(4), 973-997.

Riechmann, T. (2006). Mixed motives in a Cournot game. Economics Bulletin, 29(4), 1-8.

Schaffer, M.E. (1989). Are profit maximizers the best survivors? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 12(1), 29-45.

Schipper, B.C. (2009), Imitators and optimizers in Cournot oligopoly. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 33(12), 1981-1990.

Simon, H.A. (1955). A behavioural model of rational choice. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 69(1), 129-138.

Vega-Redondo, F. (1997). The evolution of Walrasian behavior. Econometrica, 65(2), 375-384.

Vickers, J. (1985). Delegation and the Theory of the Firm. The Economic Journal, 95 (Supplement), 138-147.

Williamson, O.E. (1964). The Economics of Discretionary Behavior: Managerial Objectives in a Theory of the Firm. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.