Transcript Chapter 12 - University of Alberta

Chapter 12
Monopolistic Competition
and Oligopoly
Topics to be Discussed
 Monopolistic Competition
 Oligopoly
 Price Competition
 Competition Versus Collusion: The
Prisoners’ Dilemma
 Implications of the Prisoners’ Dilemma for
Oligopolistic Pricing
 Cartels
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
2
Monopolistic Competition
 Characteristics
1. Many firms
2. Free entry and exit
3. Differentiated product
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
3
Monopolistic Competition
 The amount of monopoly power depends
on the degree of differentiation
 Examples of this very common market
structure include:
Toothpaste
Soap
Cold remedies
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
4
Monopolistic Competition
 Toothpaste
 Crest and monopoly power
 Procter
& Gamble is the sole producer of Crest
 Consumers can have a preference for Crest –
taste, reputation, decay-preventing efficacy
 The greater the preference (differentiation) the
higher the price
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
5
Monopolistic Competition
 Two important characteristics
Differentiated but highly substitutable
products
Free entry and exit
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
6
A Monopolistically Competitive
Firm in the Short and Long Run
$/Q
Short Run
$/Q
MC
Long Run
MC
AC
AC
PSR
PLR
DSR
DLR
MRSR
QSR
Quantity
MRLR
QLR
Quantity
A Monopolistically Competitive
Firm in the Short and Long Run
 Short run
Downward sloping demand – differentiated
product
Demand is relatively elastic – good
substitutes
MR < P
Profits are maximized when MR = MC
This firm is making economic profits
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
8
A Monopolistically Competitive
Firm in the Short and Long Run
 Long run
Profits will attract new firms to the industry
(no barriers to entry)
The old firm’s demand will decrease to DLR
Firm’s output and price will fall
Industry output will rise
No economic profit (P = AC)
P > MC  some monopoly power
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
9
Monopolistically and Perfectly
Competitive Equilibrium (LR)
$/Q
Monopolistic Competition
Perfect Competition
$/Q
MC
Deadweight
loss
AC
MC
AC
P
PC
D = MR
DLR
MRLR
QC
Quantity
QMC
Quantity
Monopolistic Competition and
Economic Efficiency
 The monopoly power yields a higher
price than perfect competition. If price
was lowered to the point where MC = D,
consumer surplus would increase by the
yellow triangle – deadweight loss.
 With no economic profits in the long run,
the firm is still not producing at minimum
AC and excess capacity exists.
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
11
Monopolistic Competition and
Economic Efficiency
 Firm faces downward sloping demand so
zero profit point is to the left of minimum
average cost
 Excess capacity is inefficient because
average cost would be lower with fewer
firms
Inefficiencies would make consumers worse
off
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
12
Monopolistic Competition
 If inefficiency is bad for consumers,
should monopolistic competition be
regulated?
 Market power is relatively small. Usually
there are enough firms to compete with
enough substitutability between firms –
deadweight loss small.
 Inefficiency is balanced by benefit of
increased product diversity – may easily
outweigh deadweight loss.
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
13
The Market for Colas and Coffee
 Each market has much differentiation in
products and tries to gain consumers
through that differentiation
Coke vs. Pepsi
Maxwell House vs. Folgers
 How much monopoly power do each of
these producers have?
How elastic is demand for each brand?
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
14
Elasticities of Demand for
Brands of Colas and Coffee
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
15
The Market for Colas and Coffee
 The demand for Royal Crown is more
price inelastic than for Coke
 There is significant monopoly power in
these two markets
 The greater the elasticity, the less
monopoly power and vice versa
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
16
Oligopoly – Characteristics
 Small number of firms
 Product differentiation may or may not
exist
 Barriers to entry
Scale economies
Patents
Technology
Name recognition
Strategic action
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
17
Oligopoly
 Examples
Automobiles
Steel
Aluminum
Petrochemicals
Electrical equipment
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
18
Oligopoly
 Management Challenges
Strategic actions to deter entry
 Threaten
to decrease price against new
competitors by keeping excess capacity
Rival behavior
 Because
only a few firms, each must consider
how its actions will affect its rivals and in turn
how their rivals will react
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
19
Oligopoly – Equilibrium
 If one firm decides to cut their price, they
must consider what the other firms in the
industry will do
Could cut price some, the same amount, or
more than firm
Could lead to price war and drastic fall in
profits for all
 Actions and reactions are dynamic,
evolving over time
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
20
Oligopoly – Equilibrium
 Defining Equilibrium
 Firms are doing the best they can and have no
incentive to change their output or price
 All firms assume competitors are taking rival
decisions into account
 Nash Equilibrium
 Each firm is doing the best it can given what its
competitors are doing
 We will focus on duopoly
 Markets in which two firms compete
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
21
Oligopoly
 The Cournot Model
Oligopoly model in which firms produce a
homogeneous good, each firm treats the
output of its competitors as fixed, and all
firms decide simultaneously how much to
produce
Firm will adjust its output based on what it
thinks the other firm will produce
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
22
Firm 1’s Output Decision
P1
Firm 1 and market demand curve,
D1(0), if Firm 2 produces nothing.
D1(0)
If Firm 1 thinks Firm 2 will produce
50 units, its demand curve is
shifted to the left by this amount.
MR1(0)
D1(75)
If Firm 1 thinks Firm 2 will produce
75 units, its demand curve is
shifted to the left by this amount.
MR1(75)
MC1
MR1(50)
12.5 25
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
D1(50)
50
Chapter 12
Q1
23
Oligopoly
 The Reaction Curve
The relationship between a firm’s profitmaximizing output and the amount it thinks
its competitor will produce
A firm’s profit-maximizing output is a
decreasing schedule of the expected output
of Firm 2
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
24
Reaction Curves and Cournot
Equilibrium
Q1
Firm 1’s reaction curve shows how much it
will produce as a function of how much
it thinks Firm 2 will produce. The x’s
correspond to the previous model.
100
75
Firm 2’s Reaction
Curve Q*2(Q1)
Firm 2’s reaction curve shows how much it
will produce as a function of how much
it thinks Firm 1 will produce.
50 x
25
x
Firm 1’s Reaction
Curve Q*1(Q2)
25
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
50
x
75
Chapter 12
x
100
Q2
25
Reaction Curves and Cournot
Equilibrium
Q1
In Cournot equilibrium, each
firm correctly assumes how
much its competitors will
produce and thereby
maximizes its own profits.
100
75
Firm 2’s Reaction
Curve Q*2(Q1)
50 x
25
Cournot
Equilibrium
x
Firm 1’s Reaction
Curve Q*1(Q2)
25
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
50
x
75
Chapter 12
x
100
Q2
26
Cournot Equilibrium
 Each firm’s reaction curve tells it how
much to produce given the output of its
competitor
 Equilibrium in the Cournot model, in
which each firm correctly assumes how
much its competitor will produce and sets
its own production level accordingly
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
27
Oligopoly
 Cournot equilibrium is an example of a
Nash equilibrium (Cournot-Nash
Equilibrium)
 The Cournot equilibrium says nothing
about the dynamics of the adjustment
process
 Since both firms adjust their output, neither
output would be fixed
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
28
The Linear Demand Curve
 An Example of the Cournot Equilibrium
Two firms face linear market demand curve
We can compare competitive equilibrium and
the equilibrium resulting from collusion
Market demand is P = 30 - Q
Q is total production of both firms:
Q = Q1 + Q2
Both firms have MC1 = MC2 = 0
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
29
Oligopoly Example
 Firm 1’s Reaction Curve  MR = MC
Total Revenue : R1  PQ1  (30  Q)Q1
 30Q1  (Q1  Q2 )Q1
 30Q1  Q12  Q2Q1
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
30
Oligopoly Example
 An Example of the Cournot Equilibrium
MR1  R1 Q1  30  2Q1  Q2
MR1  0  MC 1
Firm 1' s Reaction Curve
Q1  15  1 2 Q2
Firm 2' s Reaction Curve
Q2  15  1 2 Q1
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
31
Oligopoly Example
 An Example of the Cournot Equilibrium
Cournot Equilibrium : Q1  Q2
15  1 2(15  1 2Q1 )  10
Q  Q1  Q2  20
P  30  Q  10
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
32
Duopoly Example
Q1
30
Firm 2’s
Reaction Curve
The demand curve is P = 30 - Q and
both firms have 0 marginal cost.
Cournot Equilibrium
15
10
Firm 1’s
Reaction Curve
10
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
15
Chapter 12
30
Q2
33
Oligopoly Example
 Profit Maximization with Collusion
R  PQ  (30  Q)Q  30Q  Q
MR  R Q  30  2Q
MR  0 when Q  15 and MR  MC
2
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
34
Profit Maximization w/ Collusion
 Contract Curve
Q1 + Q2 = 15
 Shows
all pairs of output Q1 and Q2 that
maximize total profits
Q1 = Q2 = 7.5
 Less
output and higher profits than the Cournot
equilibrium
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
35
Duopoly Example
Q1
30
Firm 2’s
Reaction Curve
For the firm, collusion is the best
outcome followed by the Cournot
Equilibrium and then the
competitive equilibrium
Competitive Equilibrium (P = MC; Profit = 0)
15
Cournot Equilibrium
Collusive Equilibrium
10
7.5
Firm 1’s
Reaction Curve
Collusion
Curve
7.5 10
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
15
Chapter 12
30
Q2
36
First Mover Advantage – The
Stackelberg Model
 Oligopoly model in which one firm sets its
output before other firms do
 Assumptions
One firm can set output first
MC = 0
Market demand is P = 30 - Q where Q is total
output
Firm 1 sets output first and Firm 2 then
makes an output decision seeing Firm 1’s
output
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
37
First Mover Advantage – The
Stackelberg Model
 Firm 1
Must consider the reaction of Firm 2
 Firm 2
Takes Firm 1’s output as fixed and therefore
determines output with the Cournot reaction
curve: Q2 = 15 - ½(Q1)
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
38
First Mover Advantage – The
Stackelberg Model
 Firm 1
Choose Q1 so that:
MR  MC  0
R1  PQ1  30Q1 - Q - Q2Q1
2
1
Firm 1 knows Firm 2 will choose output
based on its reaction curve. We can use Firm
2’s reaction curve as Q2 .
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
39
First Mover Advantage – The
Stackelberg Model
 Using Firm 2’s Reaction Curve for Q2:
R1  30Q1  Q12  Q1 (15  1 2Q1 )
 15Q1  1 2 Q
2
1
MR1  R1 Q1  15  Q1
MR  0 : Q1  15 and Q2  7.5
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
40
First Mover Advantage – The
Stackelberg Model
 Conclusion
Going first gives Firm 1 the advantage
Firm 1’s output is twice as large as Firm 2’s
Firm 1’s profit is twice as large as Firm 2’s
 Going first allows Firm 1 to produce a
large quantity. Firm 2 must take that into
account and produce less unless it wants
to reduce profits for everyone.
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
41
Price Competition
 Competition in an oligopolistic industry
may occur with price instead of output
 The Bertrand Model is used
Oligopoly model in which firms produce a
homogeneous good, each firm treats the
price of its competitors as fixed, and all firms
decide simultaneously what price to charge
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
42
Price Competition – Bertrand
Model
 Assumptions
Homogenous good
Market demand is P = 30 - Q where
Q = Q1 + Q2
MC1 = MC2 = $3
 Can show the Cournot equilibrium if Q1 =
Q2 = 9 and market price is $12, giving
each firm a profit of $81.
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
43
Price Competition – Bertrand
Model
 Assume here that the firms compete with
price, not quantity
 Since good is homogeneous, consumers
will buy from lowest price seller
If firms charge different prices, consumers
buy from lowest priced firm only
If firms charge same price, consumers are
indifferent who they buy from
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
44
Price Competition – Bertrand
Model
 Nash equilibrium is competitive output
since have incentive to cut prices
 Both firms set price equal to MC
P = MC; P1 = P2 = $3
Q = 27; Q1 & Q2 = 13.5
 Both firms earn zero profit
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
45
Price Competition – Bertrand
Model
 Why not charge a different price?
If charge more, sell nothing
If charge less, lose money on each unit sold
 The Bertrand model demonstrates the
importance of the strategic variable
Price versus output
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
46
Bertrand Model – Criticisms
 When firms produce a homogenous
good, it is more natural to compete by
setting quantities rather than prices
 Even if the firms do set prices and
choose the same price, what share of
total sales will go to each one?
It may not be equally divided
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
47
Price Competition –
Differentiated Products
 Market shares are now determined not
just by prices, but by differences in the
design, performance, and durability of
each firm’s product
 In these markets, more likely to compete
using price instead of quantity
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
48
Price Competition –
Differentiated Products
 Example
Duopoly with fixed costs of $20 but zero
variable costs
Firms face the same demand curves
 Firm
1’s demand: Q1 = 12 - 2P1 + P2
 Firm 2’s demand: Q2 = 12 - 2P1 + P2
Quantity that each firm can sell decreases
when it raises its own price but increases
when its competitor charges a higher price
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
49
Price Competition –
Differentiated Products
 Firms set prices at the same time
Firm 1 :  1  P1Q1  $20
 P1 (12  2 P1  P2 )  20
 12 P1 - 2 P  P1 P2  20
2
1
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
50
Price Competition –
Differentiated Products
 If P2 is fixed:
Firm 1' s profit maximizing price 
 1 P1  12  4 P1  P2  0
Firm 1' s reaction curve 
P1  3  1 4 P2
Firm 2' s reaction curve 
P2  3  1 4 P1
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
51
Nash Equilibrium in Prices
 What if both firms collude?
They both decide to charge the same price
that maximizes both of their profits
Firms will charge $6 and will be better off
colluding since they will earn a profit of $16
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
52
Nash Equilibrium in Prices
P1
Equilibrium at price of
$4 and profits of $12
Firm 2’s Reaction Curve
Collusive Equilibrium
$6
$4
Firm 1’s Reaction Curve
Nash Equilibrium
$4
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
$6
Chapter 12
P2
53
Nash Equilibrium in Prices
 If Firm 1 sets price first and then Firm 2
makes pricing decision:
Firm 1 would be at a distinct disadvantage by
moving first
The firm that moves second has an
opportunity to undercut slightly and capture a
larger market share
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
54
A Pricing Problem: Procter &
Gamble
 Procter & Gamble, Kao Soap, Ltd., and
Unilever, Ltd. were entering the market
for Gypsy Moth Tape
 All three would be choosing their prices
at the same time
 Each firm was using same technology so
had same production costs
FC = $480,000/month & VC = $1/unit
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
55
A Pricing Problem: Procter &
Gamble
 Procter & Gamble had to consider
competitors’ prices when setting their
price
 P&G’s demand curve was:
Q = 3,375P-3.5(PU)0.25(PK)0.25
Where P, PU, PK are P&G’s, Unilever’s, and
Kao’s prices respectively
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
56
A Pricing Problem: Procter &
Gamble
 What price should P&G choose and what
is the expected profit?
 Can calculate profits by taking different
possibilities of prices you and the other
companies could charge
 Nash equilibrium is at $1.40 – the point
where competitors are doing the best
they can as well
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
57
P&G’s Profit (in thousands of $
per month)
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
58
A Pricing Problem for Procter &
Gamble
 Collusion with competitors will give larger
profits
If all agree to charge $1.50, each earn profit
of $20,000
Collusion agreements are hard to enforce
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
59
Competition Versus Collusion:
The Prisoners’ Dilemma
 Nash equilibrium is a noncooperative
equilibrium: each firm makes decision
that gives greatest profit, given actions of
competitors
 Although collusion is illegal, why don’t
firms cooperate without explicitly
colluding?
Why not set profit maximizing collusion price
and hope others follow?
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
60
Competition Versus Collusion:
The Prisoners’ Dilemma
 Competitor is not likely to follow
 Competitor can do better by choosing a
lower price, even if they know you will set
the collusive level price
 We can use example from before to
better understand the firms’ choices
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
61
Competition Versus Collusion:
The Prisoners’ Dilemma
 Assume:
FC  $20 and VC  $0
Firm 1' s demand : Q  12  2 P1  P2
Firm 2' s demand : Q  12  2 P2  P1
Nash Equilibriu m : P  $4
Collusion :
P  $6
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
  $12
  $16
62
Competition Versus Collusion:
The Prisoners’ Dilemma
 Possible Pricing Outcomes:
Firm 1 : P  $6
Firm 2 : P  $6
P  $6
P  $4
 2  P2Q2  20
  $16
 (4)12  (2)(4)  6  20  $20
 1  P1Q1  20
 (6)12  (2)(6)  4  20  $4
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
63
Payoff Matrix for Pricing Game
Firm 2
Charge $4
Charge $4
Charge $6
$12, $12
$20, $4
$4, $20
$16, $16
Firm 1
Charge $6
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
64
Competition Versus Collusion:
The Prisoners’ Dilemma
 We can now answer the question of why
firm does not choose cooperative price
 Cooperating means both firms charging $6
instead of $4 and earning $16 instead of
$12
 Each firm always makes more money by
charging $4, no matter what its competitor
does
 Unless enforceable agreement to charge
$6, will be better off charging $4
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
65
Competition Versus Collusion:
The Prisoners’ Dilemma
 An example in game theory, called the
Prisoners’ Dilemma, illustrates the
problem oligopolistic firms face
Two prisoners have been accused of
collaborating in a crime
They are in separate jail cells and cannot
communicate
Each has been asked to confess to the crime
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
66
Payoff Matrix for Prisoners’
Dilemma
Prisoner B
Confess
Confess
Prisoner A
Don’t
confess
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
-5, -5
Don’t confess
-1, -10
Would you choose to confess?
-10, -1
Chapter 12
-2, -2
67
Oligopolistic Markets
Conclusions
1. Collusion will lead to greater profits
2. Explicit and implicit collusion is possible
3. Once collusion exists, the profit motive
to break and lower price is significant
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
68
Payoff Matrix for the P&G
Pricing Problem
Unilever and Kao
Charge $1.40
Charge
$1.40
P&G
$12, $12
Charge $1.50
$29, $11
What price should P & G choose?
Charge
$1.50
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
$3, $21
Chapter 12
$20, $20
69
Observations of Oligopoly
Behavior
1. In some oligopoly markets, pricing
behavior in time can create a
predictable pricing environment and
implied collusion may occur
2. In other oligopoly markets, the firms are
very aggressive and collusion is not
possible
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
70
Observations of Oligopoly
Behavior
2. In other oligopoly markets, the firms are
very aggressive and collusion is not
possible
a. Firms are reluctant to change price because
of the likely response of their competitors
b. In this case, prices tend to be relatively rigid
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
71
Price Rigidity
 Firms have strong desire for stability
 Price rigidity – characteristic of
oligopolistic markets by which firms are
reluctant to change prices even if costs
or demands change
Fear lower prices will send wrong message
to competitors, leading to price war
Higher prices may cause competitors to raise
theirs
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
72
Price Rigidity
 Basis of kinked demand curve model of
oligopoly
Each firm faces a demand curve kinked at
the current prevailing price, P*
Above P*, demand is very elastic
 If
P > P*, other firms will not follow
Below P*, demand is very inelastic
 If
P < P*, other firms will follow suit
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
73
Price Rigidity
 With a kinked demand curve, marginal
revenue curve is discontinuous
 Firm’s costs can change without resulting
in a change in price
 Kinked demand curve does not really
explain oligopolistic pricing
Description of price rigidity rather than an
explanation of it
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
74
The Kinked Demand Curve
$/Q
If the producer raises price, the
competitors will not and the
demand will be elastic.
If the producer lowers price, the
competitors will follow and the
demand will be inelastic.
D
Quantity
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
MR
75
The Kinked Demand Curve
$/Q
So long as marginal cost is in the
vertical region of the marginal
revenue curve, price and output
will remain constant.
MC’
P*
MC
D
Quantity
Q*
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
MR
76
Price Signaling and Price
Leadership
 Price Signaling
Implicit collusion in which a firm announces a
price increase in the hope that other firms will
follow suit
 Price Leadership
Pattern of pricing in which one firm regularly
announces price changes that other firms
then match
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
77
Price Signaling and Price
Leadership
 The Dominant Firm Model
In some oligopolistic markets, one large firm
has a major share of total sales, and a group
of smaller firms supplies the remainder of the
market
The large firm might then act as the
dominant firm, setting a price that maximizes
its own profits
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
78
The Dominant Firm Model
 Dominant firm must determine its
demand curve, DD
Difference between market demand and
supply of fringe firms
 To maximize profits, dominant firm
produces QD where MRD and MCD cross
 At P*, fringe firms sell QF and total
quantity sold is QT = QD + QF
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
79
Price Setting by a Dominant
Firm
Price
SF
D
The dominant firm’s demand
curve is the difference between
market demand (D) and the supply
of the fringe firms (SF).
P1
MCD
P*
DD
P2
QF QD
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
QT
MRD
Chapter 12
At this price, fringe firms
sell QF, so that total
sales are QT.
Quantity
80
Cartels
 Producers in a cartel explicitly agree to
cooperate in setting prices and output
 Typically only a subset of producers are
part of the cartel and others benefit from
the choices of the cartel
 If demand is sufficiently inelastic and
cartel is enforceable, prices may be well
above competitive levels
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
81
Cartels
 Examples of
successful cartels
 OPEC
 International Bauxite
Association
 Mercurio Europeo
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
 Examples of
unsuccessful cartels
 Copper
 Tin
 Coffee
 Tea
 Cocoa
82
Cartels – Conditions for
Success
1. Stable cartel organization must be
formed – price and quantity settled on
and adhered to
 Members have different costs, assessments
of demand and objectives
 Tempting to cheat by lowering price to
capture larger market share
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
83
Cartels – Conditions for
Success
2. Potential for monopoly power
 Even if cartel can succeed, there might be
little room to raise prices if it faces highly
elastic demand
 If potential gains from cooperation are
large, cartel members will have more
incentive to make the cartel work
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
84
Analysis of Cartel Pricing
 Members of cartel must take into account
the actions of non-members when
making pricing decisions
 Cartel pricing can be analyzed using the
dominant firm model
OPEC oil cartel – successful
CIPEC copper cartel – unsuccessful
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
85
The OPEC Oil Cartel
Price
TD
SC
TD is the total world demand
curve for oil, and SC is the
competitive supply. OPEC’s
demand is the difference
between the two.
OPEC’s profit maximizing
quantity is found at the
intersection of its MR and
MC curves. At this quantity
OPEC charges price P*.
P*
DOPEC
MCOPEC
MROPEC
QOPEC
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
Quantity
86
Cartels
 About OPEC
Very low MC
TD is inelastic
Non-OPEC supply is inelastic
DOPEC is relatively inelastic
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
87
The OPEC Oil Cartel
TD
Price
SC
The price without the cartel:
•Competitive price (PC) where
DOPEC = MCOPEC
P*
DOPEC
MCOPEC
Pc
MROPEC
QC
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
QOPEC
QT
Chapter 12
Quantity
88
The CIPEC Copper Cartel
Price
TD
SC
MCCIPEC
•TD and SC are
relatively elastic
•DCIPEC is elastic
•CIPEC has little
monopoly power
•P* is closer to PC
DCIPEC
P*
PC
MRCIPEC
QCIPEC
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
QC
QT
Quantity
Chapter 12
89
Cartels
 To be successful:
Total demand must not be very price elastic
Either the cartel must control nearly all of the
world’s supply or the supply of noncartel
producers must not be price elastic
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
90
The Cartelization of
Intercollegiate Athletics
1. Large number of firms (colleges)
2. Large number of consumers (fans)
3. Very high profits
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
91
The Cartelization of
Intercollegiate Athletics
 NCAA is the cartel
Restricts competition
Reduces bargaining power by athletes –
enforces rules regarding eligibility and terms
of compensation
Reduces competition by universities – limits
number of games played each season,
number of teams per division, etc.
Limits price competition – sole negotiator for
all football television contracts
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
92
The Cartelization of
Intercollegiate Athletics
 Although members have occasionally
broken rules and regulations, has been a
successful cartel
 In 1984, Supreme Court ruled that the
NCAA’s monopolization of football TV
contracts was illegal
Competition led to drop in contract fees
More college football on TV, but lower
revenues to schools
©2005 Pearson Education, Inc.
Chapter 12
93