arxiv: v1 [q-fin.ec] 15 Oct 2015

Transcription

1 Stability and Chaos in a Multi-Market Oligopoly with Economies of Scale arxiv: v1 [q-fin.ec] 15 Oct 2015 Marcelo J. Villena and Axel A. Araneda November 20, 2017 Faculty of Engineering & Sciences, Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez Avda. Diagonal las Torres 2640, Peñalolén, , Santiago, Chile. Abstract In an oligopolistic setting under a Cournot scheme, the strategy of each economic player depends on its own quantity decision, but also on its rivals reaction. Since Puu s seminal work, different oligopoly games have been studied in terms of their stability, as nonlinear discrete time varying systems. Most works in this line of research have concentrated on single markets with linear production structures (i.e. assuming constant returns to scale). Nevertheless, oligopolistic competition seems today to present multi-market phenomena, exhibiting, in some cases, important economies of scale, especially in the retail and service industry. In this paper, we study the stability of a multi-market Cournot-Nash equilibrium with global economies of scale. In other words, we look at the scale level that is related to the total production of firms, in all markets, as opposed to local economies of scale presented at each store individually. The modeling confirms the fact that economies and diseconomies of scale make the Cournot equilibrium very unstable for certain values of the scale of the producers. On the other hand, stability is achieved when the firm reaches absolute advantage with respect to its competition. Keywords: Oligopoly, Chaos, Bifurcations, Stability, Economies of Scale. axel.araneda@uai.cl, Tel.:

2 1 Introduction In an oligopolistic setting under a Cournot scheme [1], the strategy of each economic player depends on its own quantity decision, and on its rival s reaction. Puu was the first to explicitly show the complex dynamics of the oligopolistic setting under simple assumptions (isoelastic demand function and constant marginal cost) for two and three players [2 4]. This kind of analysis has grown significantly during the last decade in both, the physics and complex systems literature, as well as in the economically-oriented journals. Indeed, since the Puu s approach, several games has been developed for the study of the market stability, focusing on: different demand or price function[5, 6], number of players [7, 8], behavioral assumptions (naive [9 11], versus adaptive [12, 13], bounded rationality [6, 14, 15] or heterogeneous expectations [16 19]). In terms of the cost function definition, several developments has been proposed as well, as non-linear cost function [6, 13, 15, 19, 20], capacity constraints [13, 21 23] and some spillover effects [24 27]. Most works in this line of research have concentrated in single markets with linear production structures (i.e. assuming constant returns to scale). Nevertheless, oligopolistic competition today seems to present multi-market phenomena and, in some cases, they showcase important economies of scale, especially in the retail industry. Indeed, supermarket chains and retailers of food, gasoline, supplies and services all compete for market share through multi-store formats over geographically separated markets. This localized competition is presented in different levels: city, region, or country. In this context, companies segment their strategies, tailoring their selected outcome for different types of consumers and competitors, which vary by geographical location. Applications of the Cournot scheme into the multi-market problem has been proposed before, for example, by economists for the case of international trade. Some of these works modeled the presence of economies of scale, for the domestic and foreign markets, considering the size (quantity produced) and other properties of firms [28 35]. Thus, for instance in a work of Krugman [30], a multi-market Cournot model with economies of scale was used to explain the successful performance of Japan as an exporting country at the beginning of the 1980s. In theoretical terms, the multi-market oligopoly framework was revisited and generalized in the seminal paper by Bulow, Geanakoplos and Klemperer [36]. One of their main remarks is that the presence of a multi-store firm in a market may affect the position in the others for the presence of demand or supply spillovers. Positive supply spillover clearly produce the economies of scale. In the same line, Bernheim and Whinston, [37], show that with scale economies, the multi-market contact may produce spheres of influence [38], that occurs when each of the multi-market competing firms may be more efficient in some subset of these markets and less efficient in others (symmetric advantage) or when one firm is more efficient in all markets (absolute advantage). In terms of the dynamics analysis of the multi-market Cournot problem, we found only a couple of papers [39, 40], focusing on different products and scope. This research deals with the analysis of chaos and stability of multi-market competition in the presence of economies and diseconomies of scale, thus extending the analysis of the dynamics of the oligopolistic competition. The main hypothesis of the paper is that non-linear cost structures in multi-market setting are important sources of instability in the game outcome. Particularly, we study the stability of a multi-market Cournot-Nash 2

3 equilibrium with global economies of scale, in other words, the scale level that is related to the total production of firms, in all markets, as opposed to local economies of scale presented at each store individually or linear production structures. In this setting, the internal organization of a firm may affect its performances over the markets and the global equilibrium [41]. For example, multi-market firms that buy their products in a centralized manner, storing them in a distribution center, to be redistributed afterwards to their retailers store in all markets usually operate this way to obtain economies of scale in the process of buying and distribution. In this paper, we assume this type of centralized structure where companies takes advantage of their size, under economies of scale, that allow them to decrease the cost structure [42]. This papers is organized as follows: in section 2 the model is presented, considering interrelated cost structures and economies of scale. In section 3, the complex dynamics of this game are shown by bifurcation diagrams. Finally, the main conclusions for this work are developed. 2 The Model Let us consider a multi-market oligopoly where N firms compete in M markets. All markets are very far away, so there not exist arbitrage possibilities. Each market has its own price (from a linear demand function). Then, if qj i is the quantity of the ith company at the market j and Q j the market supply, the selling price at the j th market is given by, P j = a j b j qj i = a j b j Q j (2.1) i Given a centralized managerial structure, each firm presents global costs (production or buy cost) and local cost (logistic cost) 1. Let s G i and L i be the global and local cost of the firm i respectively, so we have: G i = c i j qj i + d i j q i j 2 = c i Q i + d i ( Q i) 2 (2.2) L i = j e i jq i j (2.3) C i = G i + L i (2.4) where C i is the total cost 2 for the i th firm. Under this cost structure, c i > 0 and d i > c i /2 ( Q i) max, where Qi max is the maximum level of production of firm i. Thus, If d i [ c i /2 (Q j ) max, 0 ] we have economies of scale and if d i > 0 we have diseconomies of scale. Thus the profit function of each firm depends upon each market price, the quantity sold by the firm in that particular market, and the total cost of the firm, that considers the sum of the global cost and the local cost: 1 For example, a retail s firm with centers of distribution and many stores located in different relevant markets 2 This is the same cost structure proposed for example by Krugman [30] 3

4 π i = j = j q i jp j C i (2.5) q i j ( a j b j ) c i Q i d i ( Q i) 2 e i jqj i (2.6) qj i i j The managerial decision of each firm is to choose the quantity qj i profits. Hence, the first order conditions of this game are: that maximizes its π i q i j = a j b j Q j b j q i j (c i + e i j) 2d i Q i = 0 (2.7) Defining the residual market supply as Q j = Q j qj i, and the participation of the firm i in other markets different to j as Q i = Q i qj i, the equilibrium quantity take the value: q i j = a j b j Qj (c i + e i j ) 2di Qi 2 (b j + d i ) (2.8) Clearly, the allocation decision depends on the decision of the other players on this market, and also depends on the participation of the firm in other markets (or the total firm supply). This results is consistent with the Cournot intuition and consistent to previous results for the single-market problem 3 [20, 43]. The profit of each firm at the equilibrium point is given by: π i = [ (bj d i) ( q i ) 2 j + 2di q j i ] q k i j k The functional form of the Jacobian matrix of the system is given by: (2.9) π 1 π 1 π 1 q 1 q 2 q N π 2 π 2 π 2 J = q 1 q 2 q N..... π N π N π N q 1 q 2 q N where / q i = [ / q i 1 / q i 2 / q i M ]. So, π n / q i is a 1xM matrix, with entries that contain the change of the reaction functions of the n th firm produced by the 3 When Q i = 0 4

5 change of the outputs of the firm i in the market j. So, we J is a N N M matrix. Now, a standard method for transform the static game into a dynamic game is the use of the Cournot or naive strategy 4 (the same as proposed for example by Cournot [1] and Puu [2]). Thus, the long run map as an iterative process is given by: q i j(t + 1) = a j b j Qj (c i + e i j ) 2di Qi 2 (b j + d i ) (2.10) Analogously to [3], if the value of 2.10 is negative, it will be replaced by zero. 3 Results Using simulations we show the complex dynamics of the equilibrium quantity using the scale parameter of one player as bifurcation parameter. 3.1 Case 1: Duopoly competing on two markets Firstly, the equilibrium of a duopoly over two markets with homogeneous parameters is analyzed (a j = 15, b j = 1, c i = 0.1 and e i j = 0.5 i, j.). Here, it is possible to see that the change of the scale parameter of player one don t generate any chaotic path on the total quantity of the two players; i.e., the equilibrium is stable under the scale parameter. The figure 5.1 shows the evolution of the stability, for different values of the scale parameter of the other firm. We see that when d 1 < 0.25, the first firm is able to reduces costs importantly due to its economy of scale, making firm two went out of business, and hence output of the firm two is clearly zero. 3.2 Case 2: 3x3 Scheme Secondly, the case of three firms in three markets is analyzed. The markets and players are symmetric with the same parameters used previously. The fig. 5.2 and 5.3 show the bifurcation diagram for the total quantities of the player one and two 5 respectively, with respect to the bifurcation parameter d 1, when all the other players operate under economies of scale. For this case, we select d 2 = d 3 = 0.1. If d 1 < 0.166, we see that an stability zone for Q 1 and Q 2 is given by zero production. That is, player one gets a very high level of efficiency thanks to its economies of scale, breaking the competition. In economic terms, firms one gets comparative advantages 6 in this market, with respect to its competition, similar to what happen in the Japanese economy during the 1980s. On the other hand, for d 1 > the equilibrium quantities 4 This strategy consist in that a player at time of the decision making, it take in account the rivals previous output, i.e.,the managers uses past information and supposes it doesn t change at this moment. 5 Given the homogeneity of the parameters, the results for Q 3 are the same that the results for Q 2. 6 Defined as the ability of a firm to produce a particular good or service at a lower marginal cost with respect to its competition. 5

6 become clearly unstable. Finally, for i = 1 the quantity goes to down in mean, and for i = 2, 3 the quantity growths in mean. If d 2 = d 3 = 0, that is when the other players have constant returns to scale, we found a stability zone for the total quantities of d 1 < (analogously to the case described above), where only survives the first firm due to the reduction in its cost structure by the economies of scale. Moving to the right, a complex dynamics zone appears, decreasing and vanishing later. The complex dynamics comes back when player one operate under diseconomies of scale. Finally if the other players operate under diseconomies of scale (using d 2 = d 3 = 0.1), the same previous results is obtained for d 1 < After that a complex dynamics for the equilibrium for all players is given. 4 Conclusions In this work, a formulation that allows the economic modeling of an oligopoly with multimarket competence is developed. The model considers the impact of the firms size due to the economies or diseconomies of scale that are explicitly modeled. The model confirms the fact that economies and diseconomies of scale make the Cournot equilibrium very unstable for certain values of the scale parameter of the producers. On the other hand, stability is achieved when the firm reaches absolute advantage 7 with respect to its competition. 5 Acknowledgements Aid from the Fondecyt Program, project Nº , is grateful acknowledged by Marcelo Villena. Axel Araneda thanks as well Faculty of Engineering & Science of the Universidad Adolfo Ibáñez for financial support. References [1] Antoine-Augustin Cournot. Recherches sur les principes mathématiques de la théorie des richesses. chez L. Hachette, Paris, [2] Tönu Puu. Chaos in duopoly pricing. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 1(6): , [3] Tönu Puu. Complex dynamics with three oligopolists. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 7(12): , [4] Tönu Puu. The chaotic duopolists revisited. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 33(3): , [5] SS Askar, Ahmad M Alshamrani, and K Alnowibet. Dynamic cournot duopoly games with nonlinear demand function. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 259: , Defined as the capability of a firm (or country) to produce more of a given product using less resources than its competition. 6

7 [6] Ahmad K. Naimzada and Lucia Sbragia. Oligopoly games with nonlinear demand and cost functions: Two boundedly rational adjustment processes. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 29(3): , [7] E Ahmed and HN Agiza. Dynamics of a cournot game with n-competitors. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 9(9): , [8] Tönu Puu. On the stability of cournot equilibrium when the number of competitors increases. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 66(3): , [9] Liang Chen and Guanrong Chen. Controlling chaos in an economic model. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 374(1): , [10] Akio Matsumoto. Controlling the cournot-nash chaos. Journal of optimization theory and applications, 128(2): , [11] Gian Italo Bischi, Ahmad K Naimzada, and Lucia Sbragia. Oligopoly games with local monopolistic approximation. Journal of economic behavior & organization, 62(3): , [12] Gian Italo Bischi and Michael Kopel. Equilibrium selection in a nonlinear duopoly game with adaptive expectations. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 46(1):73 100, [13] Gian Italo Bischi and Fabio Lamantia. Routes to complexity induced by constraints in cournot oligopoly games with linear reaction functions. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 16(2), [14] HN Agiza, AS Hegazi, and AA Elsadany. Complex dynamics and synchronization of a duopoly game with bounded rationality. Mathematics and computers in Simulation, 58(2): , [15] LU Yali. Dynamics of a delayed duopoly game with increasing marginal costs and bounded rationality strategy. Procedia Engineering, 15: , [16] HN Agiza and AA Elsadany. Nonlinear dynamics in the cournot duopoly game with heterogeneous players. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 320: , [17] HN Agiza and AA Elsadany. Chaotic dynamics in nonlinear duopoly game with heterogeneous players. Applied Mathematics and Computation, 149(3): , [18] Natascia Angelini, Roberto Dieci, and Franco Nardini. Bifurcation analysis of a dynamic duopoly model with heterogeneous costs and behavioural rules. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 79(10): , [19] Junhai Ma and Xiaosong Pu. Complex dynamics in nonlinear triopoly market with different expectations. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2011, [20] Tomasz Dubiel-Teleszynski. Nonlinear dynamics in a heterogeneous duopoly game with adjusting players and diseconomies of scale. Communications in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, 16(1): ,

8 [21] Tönu Puu and Anna Norin. Cournot duopoly when the competitors operate under capacity constraints. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 18(3): , [22] Tönu Puu and Manuel Ruíz Marín. The dynamics of a triopoly cournot game when the competitors operate under capacity constraints. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 28(2): , [23] Fabio Lamantia. A nonlinear duopoly with efficient production-capacity levels. Computational Economics, 38(3): , [24] Gian-Italo Bischi and Fabio Lamantia. Nonlinear duopoly games with positive cost externalities due to spillover effects. Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, 13(4): , [25] Gian-Italo Bischi and Fabio Lamantia. Chaos synchronization and intermittency in a duopoly game with spillover effects. In Oligopoly Dynamics, pages Springer, [26] Gian Italo Bischi and Fabio Lamantia. A dynamic model of oligopoly with r&d externalities along networks. part ii. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 84:66 82, [27] Gian Italo Bischi and Fabio Lamantia. A dynamic model of oligopoly with r&d externalities along networks. part i. Mathematics and Computers in Simulation, 84:51 65, [28] James A Brander. Intra-industry trade in identical commodities. Journal of international Economics, 11(1):1 14, [29] James Brander and Paul Krugman. A reciprocal dumping model of international trade. Journal of international economics, 15(3): , [30] Paul Krugman. Import protection as export promotion: International competition in the presence of oligopoly and economies of scale. In Henryk Kierzkowski, editor, Monopolistic Competition in International Trade, chapter 11, pages Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, [31] Avinash Dixit. International trade policy for oligopolistic industries. The Economic Journal, 94:pp. 1 16, [32] Elhanan Helpman. Increasing returns, imperfect markets, and trade theory. In R.W. Jones and Kenen P.B., editors, Handbook of International Economics, volume 1, pages Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., [33] Shmuel Ben-Zvi and Elhanan Helpman. Oligopoly in segmented markets. Working Paper 2665, National Bureau of Economic Research, [34] Dermot Leahy. Import protection as export promotion in oligopolistic markets with r & d. The Economic and Social Review, 23(1):93 103, [35] Tracy Murray and Nurlan Turdaliev. Universal dumping of homogeneous products. Review of International Economics, 7(4): ,

9 [36] Jeremy I Bulow, John D Geanakoplos, and Paul D Klemperer. Multimarket oligopoly: Strategic substitutes and complements. The Journal of Political Economy, 93(3): , [37] B Douglas Bernheim and Michael D Whinston. Multimarket contact and collusive behavior. The RAND Journal of Economics, 21(1):1 26, [38] Corwin D Edwards. Conglomerate bigness as a source of power. In Business concentration and price policy, NBER Conference report, pages Princeton University Press, [39] Fang Wu and Junhai Ma. The chaos dynamic of multiproduct cournot duopoly game with managerial delegation. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society, 2014, [40] E Ahmed and MF Elettreby. Controls of the complex dynamics of a multi-market cournot model. Economic Modelling, 37: , [41] Juan Carlos Barcena-Ruiz and Marıa Paz Espinosa. Should multiproduct firms provide divisional or corporate incentives? International Journal of Industrial Organization, 17(5): , [42] Yingyi Qian and Chenggang Xu. Why china s economic reforms differ: the m-form hierarchy and entry/expansion of the non-state sector. The Economics of Transition, 1(2): , [43] EM Elabbasy, HN Agiza, and AA Elsadany. Analysis of nonlinear triopoly game with heterogeneous players. Computers & Mathematics with Applications, 57(3): ,

10 Figure 5.1: Bifurcation diagram in a duopoly with two inter-related markets. The values of d 1 and d 2 don t generate instability. 10

11 Figure 5.2: Bifurcation diagram for Q 1 using d 2 = d 3 =

12 Figure 5.3: Bifurcation diagram for Q 2 using d 2 = d 3 = 0.1. The same results is obtained for Q 3. 12

13 Figure 5.4: Bifurcation diagram for Q 1 using d 2 = d 3 = 0. 13

14 Figure 5.5: Bifurcation diagram for Q 2 using d 2 = d 3 = 0. The same results is obtained for Q 3. 14

15 Figure 5.6: Bifurcation diagram for Q 2 using d 2 = d 3 =

16 Figure 5.7: Bifurcation diagram for Q 2 using d 2 = d 3 = 0.1. The same results is obtained for Q 3. 16