• Home
  • Textbooks
  • Introduction to Industrial Organization (The MIT Press)
  • Collusion and Price Wars

Introduction to Industrial Organization (The MIT Press)

Luis M. B. Cabral

Chapter 9

Collusion and Price Wars - all with Video Answers

Educators


Chapter Questions

Problem 1

TACIT COLLUSION. Industries A and B can be characterized by a series of parameters: $n$, the number of firms, is 8 in both industries; $r$, the
annual interest rate, is $10 \%$ in both industries; $f$, the frequency with which firms interact (number of times per year), is 1 in industry $A$ and 12 in industry $\mathrm{B} ; g$, the industry growth rate, is $10 \%$ in industry A and $-30 \%$ in industry B ; finally, $h$, the likelihood that the industry will continue in existence into the next period, is $80 \%$ in industry A and $100 \%$ in industry B.

In which of the two industries do you think tacit collusion is more likely to take place? Briefly justify your answer.

Check back soon!
03:57

Problem 2

$n$ FIRM OLIGOPOLY. Consider a price-setting oligopoly with $n$ firms, all with constant marginal cost $c$. Suppose market demand is given by $D(p)$ and the discount factor is 8 . Determine the maximum number of firms such that there exists an equilibrium with monopoly pricing.

EA
Erwin Antoni
Numerade Educator

Problem 3

REPEATED INTERACTION. Explain why collusive pricing is difficult in one-period competition and easier when firms interact over a number of periods.

Check back soon!

Problem 4

AIRBUS AND BOEING. Boeing and Airbus seem to cycle between periods of severe price competition and pledges that they will not sink into another war. Based on the analysis of Section 9.1, why do you think it is so difficult for aircraft manufacturers to collude and avoid price wars?

Check back soon!

Problem 5

PRICE WARS. "Price wars imply losses for all of the firms involved. The empirical observation of price wars is therefore a proof that firms do not behave rationally." True or false?

Check back soon!

Problem 6

AIRLINE FARE WARS I. Empirical evidence from the US airline industry suggests that fare wars are more likely when carriers have excess capacity, caused by GDP growth falling short of its predicted trend. Fare wars are also more likely during the spring and summer quarters, when more discretionary travel takes place. ${ }^{28}$ Explain how these two observations are consistent with the theories presented in Section 9.2.

Check back soon!
00:42

Problem 7

AIRLINE FARE WARS II. A 1998 news article reported that:
Delta Air Lines and American Airlines tried to raise leisure air fares $4 \%$ in most domestic markets, but the move failed Monday when lone-holdout Northwest Airlines refused to match the higher prices.

The aborted price boost illustrates the impact Northwest's woes already are having on the industry. Months of labor unrest ... are prompting passengers to book away from the fourth largest carrier. ${ }^{29}$

What does this say about the nature of price dynamics in the airline industry?

Heather Duong
Heather Duong
Numerade Educator

Problem 8

PAPER PRODUCTS. In the third quarter of 1999 , most North American paper and forest-products companies experienced an improvement in their results. The industry, analysts said, was in a cyclical upswing: not only was demand increasing at a moderate pace; more important, the industry practiced restraint in keeping low production levels, thus providing support for higher prices. 30

How do you interpret these events in light of the models presented in Section 9.2 ?

Check back soon!

Problem 9

EXPORT CARTELS. In 1918, the US Congress passed a law allowing American firms to form export cartels. Empirical evidence suggests that cartels were more likely to be formed in industries where American exporters had a large market share, in capital-intensive industries, in industries selling standardized goods, and in industries that enjoyed strong export growth. ${ }^{31}$ Discuss.

Check back soon!

Problem 10

CARTEL LENIENCY. Many antitrust authorities throughout the world have implemented leniency programs targeted at busting secret cartels. These programs offer immunity from prosecution to firms who blow the whistle on their co-cartel conspirators. These programs have proven extremely successful: in the US, from 1993 to 2000 the total amount of fines for anti-competitive behavior increased by twentyfold.

Show how the leniency programs first implemented by the US Department of Justice and later replicated in many countries changes the rules of the game played between firms in a secret cartel.

Check back soon!

Problem 11

CORPORATE LENIENCY. A study of the European corporate leniency program shows that the likelihood of a firm becoming the chief witness increases with its character as repeat offender, the size of the expected basic fine, the number of countries active in one group, as well as the size of the firm's share in the cartelized market. ${ }^{32}$ Are these results consistent with the discussion of these programs in the text?

Check back soon!

Problem 12

IVY LEAGUE. The endowments of the Ivy League universities have increased significantly in recent decades. This wealth notwithstanding, for years the universities managed to refrain from using financial incentives as a means to compete for students: the manual of the Council of Ivy League Presidents stated that the schools should "neutralize the effect of financial aid so that a student may choose among Ivy Group institutions for nonfinancial reasons." In 1991, the Justice Department argued that this amounted to price collusion and forced the agreement to end. However, no significant price competition took place until 1998, when Princeton University started offering full scholarships for students with incomes below $\$ 40,000$. Stanford, MIT, Dartmouth, and Cornell followed suit. Allegedly, Harvard sent a letter to accepted 1998 applicants stating that "we expect that some of our students will have particularly attractive offers from the institutions with new aid programs, and those students should not assume that we will not respond. "r

How do you interpret these events in light of the theories discussed in this chapter?

Check back soon!

Problem 13

SPANISH HOTELS. Based on data from the Spanish hotel industry, it was estimated that the rate set by hotel $i$ in market $k$ is positively influenced by a variable that measures the intensity of multimarket competition between hotel $i$ and its competitors in market $k$ : the more markets $m \neq k$ in which firm $i$ and its competitors meet, the greater the measure of multimarket contact. It was also observed that the measure of multimarket contact is highly correlated with hotel chain size, that is, the larger hotel $i$ 's chain, the greater the measure of multimarket contact for firm $i{ }^{33}$
Provide two interpretations for the positive coefficient of multimarket contact on hotel rates, one based on collusion, one based on a different effect.

Check back soon!

Problem 14

RAILROADS. In 1986, the US Congress enacted a regulation (PL99509) requiring railroads to disclose contractual terms with grain shippers. Following the passing of the legislation, rates increased on corridors with no direct competition from barge traffic, while rates decreased on corridors with substantial direct competition. ${ }^{34}$ How do you interpret these events?

Check back soon!

Problem 15

MULTIMARKET CONTACT. Consider the model of multimarket contact presented in Section 9.3: Firm 1 has $\operatorname{cost} \underline{c}$ in Market 1, while Firm 2 has a cost $c$. The situation is reversed in Market 2. Demand is the same in both markets: consumers are willing to buy $q$ units for a price of up to $p^M$ (that is, for $p \leq p^M$, quantity demanded does not depend on price). It is assumed that $\underline{c}<\bar{c}<p^M$. In each period, firms set prices in both markets simultaneously.

Determine the minimum value of the discount factor such that the optimal collusive solution is stable.

Check back soon!
03:07

Problem 16

PRICE-MATCHING GUARANTEES. In some industries firms offer price-matching guarantees (also known as meet-the-competition clauses): if some rival offers a price lower than firm $i$, then firm $i$ is forced to offer the same price to all of its customers. Consider a price-setting, homogenousproduct oligopoly and suppose that all firms have constant marginal cost $c$ and offer the same price-matching guarantee. Specifically, firms simultaneously set prices (as in the Bertrand model); and if some firm sets a lower price than other firms, then all firms must match that price. Show that any price between cost and monopoly price can be obtained as the play of a Nash equilibrium.

Md.Daniyal Arshad
Md.Daniyal Arshad
Numerade Educator

Problem 17

NUMBER OF COMPETITORS. Consider an $n$ firm homogeneousgood oligopoly with constant marginal cost, the same for all firms. Let $\bar{\delta}$ be the minimum value of the discount factor such that it is possible to sustain monopoly prices in a collusive agreement. Show that $\bar{\delta}$ is decreasing in $n$. Interpret the result.

Check back soon!

Problem 18

TWO MARKETS. Consider the model of multimarket contact presented in Section 9.3. Determine the minimum value of the discount factor such that the optimal collusive solution is stable.

Check back soon!

Problem 19

SECRET PRICE CUTS. This exercise formalizes the model of secret price cups presented in Section 9.2. ${ }^{35}$ Suppose that all consumers are willing to pay $u$ for the (homogeneous) product sold by two duopolists. In each period, demand can be high (probability $1-\alpha$ ) or low (probability $\alpha$ ). When demand is high, $h=1$ units can be sold at price $u$ (or any lower price). When demand is low, only $l=0<h$ units can be sold. The probability that demand is high or low in each period is independent of what it was in the previous period. Moreover, firms are unable to observe the state of market demand; all they can observe is whether their own demand is high or low. Finally, for simplicity, assume that production costs are zero.

Consider the following equilibrium strategies. Firms start by setting $p=$ $u$. If they receive a positive demand (namely, $\frac{1}{2}$ ), then they continue to set $p$ $=u$, that is, they remain in the "cooperative phase". If however one of the firms (or both) receives zero demand, then both firms enter into a "price war:" they set $p=0$ during $T$ periods and, after this period, revert to $p=u$ again (the cooperative phase). ${ }^{\mathrm{S}}$ Let $V$ be the net present value of a firm in equilibrium (starting in a period where collusion takes place).
(a) Show that:

$$
V=(1-\alpha)\left(\frac{u}{2}+\delta V\right)+\alpha \delta^{T+1} V
$$

(b) Show that the best a firm can do by deviating is to get:

$$
V^{\prime}=(1-\alpha) u+\delta^{T+1} V
$$
(c) Show that the condition that the prescribed strategy constitutes an equilibrium is given by:

$$
1 \leq 2(1-\alpha) \delta+(2 \alpha-1) \delta^{T+1}
$$

(d) What is then the optimal equilibrium?

Check back soon!

Problem 20

DEMAND FLUCTUATIONS. This exercise formalizes the model of demand fluctuations considered in Section 9.2. ${ }^{36}$ The new model is similar to the model in Exercise 9.19, with the difference that we now assume that in each period, before setting prices, firms observe the state of demand. ${ }^t$ We also make the simplifying assumption that $\alpha=\frac{1}{2}$, that is, the high- and the low-demand states are equally likely.
(a) Show that, if the discount factor is sufficiently large, specifically, if $\delta>\frac{2 h}{3 h+}$, then there exists an equilibrium where firms set monopoly price in every period (similarly to Section 9.1).
(b) Suppose now that the discount factor $\delta$ is lower than, but close to, the threshold derived in the previous answer. Show that, while there exists no equilibrium where firms set monopoly price in every period, there exists an equilibrium where firms set monopoly price during periods of low demand and a lower price during period of high demand.

Check back soon!

Problem 21

MULTIMARKET CONTACT. Choose a pair of firms from a given industry. Determine the extent to which there is multimarket contact between these firms and how it may help them soften competition.

Check back soon!