Pacman conjecture

Last updated

The Pacman conjecture holds that durable-goods monopolists have complete market power and so can exercise perfect price discrimination, thus extracting the total surplus. [1] This is in contrast to the Coase conjecture which holds that a durable goods monopolist has no market power, and so price is equal to the competitive market price.

Contents

In a December 1989 journal article [2] Mark Bagnoli, Stephen W. Salant, and Joseph E. Swierzbinski theorized that if each consumer could be relied upon to buy a good as soon as its price dipped below a certain point (with different consumers valuing goods differently, but all pursuing the same "get-it-while-you-can" strategy), then a monopolist could set prices very high initially and then "eat his way down the demand curve", extracting maximum profit in what Bagnoli et al. called "the Pacman strategy" after the voracious video game character. Specifically, Bagnoli et al. state that "Pacman is a sequential best reply to get-it-while-you-can", a result they call "the Pacman Theorem". Their proof, however, relies strongly on the assumption that there is an infinite time horizon.

Durable-goods monopolists and the Coase conjecture

A durable-goods monopolist sells goods which are in finite supply and which last forever, (not depreciating over time). According to the Coase Conjecture, such a monopolist has no market power as it is in competition with itself; the more of the good it sells in period one the less it will be able to sell in future periods.

Assuming marginal costs are zero. In the first period the monopolist will produce quantity (Q1) where marginal cost = marginal revenue and so extract the monopoly surplus. However, in the second period the monopolist will face a new residual demand curve (Q  Q1) and so will produce quantity where the new marginal revenue is equal to the marginal cost, which is at the competitive market price.

There is then an incentive for consumers to delay purchase of the good as they realize that its price will decrease over time. If buyers are patient enough they will not buy until the price falls and so durable goods monopolists face a horizontal demand curve at the equilibrium price and so will have no market power.

Durable-goods monopolists and the Pacman conjecture

The Pacman Conjecture on the other hand holds that consumers realize the price of the good will only fall when they purchase the good; therefore, a patient monopolist can exercise full market power and perfectly price-discriminate.

The monopolist sets the price of the durable good at time t equal to the highest reservation price of a consumer who hasn't purchased prior to that point t. The consumer then buys the good as soon as it is equal to their reservation price, as they realize price will not fall further unless they purchase it. (Bagnoli et al. refer to buyers exhibiting this behavior as "type ℓ buyers", or "buyers following the get-it-while-you-can strategy".)

The Pacman Conjecture requires that the monopolist to have perfect information about consumer reservation prices and an infinite time horizon. The buyers must not only follow the get-it-while-you-can strategy, but also must faithfully believe that the monopolist is following a perfect Pacman strategy (as otherwise they would be tempted to match patience with the monopolist in hopes of getting a better deal later). The monopolist will exercise full market power over the buyers in that pool, but will not be able to extract similar surpluses from buyers who come in from outside (for example, the children of the original buyers) without deviating from the pure Pacman strategy.

Differences between Coase and Pacman conjectures

Pacman conjecture

Coase conjecture

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Microeconomics</span> Behavior of individuals and firms

Microeconomics is a branch of economics that studies the behavior of individuals and firms in making decisions regarding the allocation of scarce resources and the interactions among these individuals and firms. Microeconomics focuses on the study of individual markets, sectors, or industries as opposed to the national economy as a whole, which is studied in macroeconomics.

A monopoly, as described by Irving Fisher, is a market with the "absence of competition", creating a situation where a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular thing. This contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market to purchase a good or service, and with oligopoly and duopoly which consists of a few sellers dominating a market. Monopolies are thus characterised by a lack of economic competition to produce the good or service, a lack of viable substitute goods, and the possibility of a high monopoly price well above the seller's marginal cost that leads to a high monopoly profit. The verb monopolise or monopolize refers to the process by which a company gains the ability to raise prices or exclude competitors. In economics, a monopoly is a single seller. In law, a monopoly is a business entity that has significant market power, that is, the power to charge overly high prices, which is associated with unfair price raises. Although monopolies may be big businesses, size is not a characteristic of a monopoly. A small business may still have the power to raise prices in a small industry.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Monopolistic competition</span> Imperfect competition of differentiated products that are not perfect substitutes

Monopolistic competition is a type of imperfect competition such that there are many producers competing against each other but selling products that are differentiated from one another and hence not perfect substitutes. In monopolistic competition, a company takes the prices charged by its rivals as given and ignores the impact of its own prices on the prices of other companies. If this happens in the presence of a coercive government, monopolistic competition will fall into government-granted monopoly. Unlike perfect competition, the company maintains spare capacity. Models of monopolistic competition are often used to model industries. Textbook examples of industries with market structures similar to monopolistic competition include restaurants, cereals, clothing, shoes, and service industries in large cities. The "founding father" of the theory of monopolistic competition is Edward Hastings Chamberlin, who wrote a pioneering book on the subject, Theory of Monopolistic Competition (1933). Joan Robinson's book The Economics of Imperfect Competition presents a comparable theme of distinguishing perfect from imperfect competition. Further work on monopolistic competition was undertaken by Dixit and Stiglitz who created the Dixit-Stiglitz model which has proved applicable used in the sub fields of international trade theory, macroeconomics and economic geography.

In economics, specifically general equilibrium theory, a perfect market, also known as an atomistic market, is defined by several idealizing conditions, collectively called perfect competition, or atomistic competition. In theoretical models where conditions of perfect competition hold, it has been demonstrated that a market will reach an equilibrium in which the quantity supplied for every product or service, including labor, equals the quantity demanded at the current price. This equilibrium would be a Pareto optimum.

In economics, imperfect competition refers to a situation where the characteristics of an economic market do not fulfil all the necessary conditions of a perfectly competitive market. Imperfect competition causes market inefficiencies, resulting in market failure. Imperfect competition usually describes behaviour of suppliers in a market, such that the level of competition between sellers is below the level of competition in perfectly competitive market conditions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deadweight loss</span> Measure of lost economic efficiency

In economics, deadweight loss is the loss of societal economic welfare due to production/consumption of a good at a quantity where marginal benefit does not equal marginal cost – in other words, there are either goods being produced despite the cost of doing so being larger than the benefit, or additional goods are not being produced despite the fact that the benefits of their production would be larger than the costs. The deadweight loss is the net benefit that is missed out on. While losses to one entity often lead to gains for another, deadweight loss represents the loss that is not regained by anyone else. This loss is therefore attributed to both producers and consumers.

This aims to be a complete article list of economics topics:

A two-part tariff (TPT) is a form of price discrimination wherein the price of a product or service is composed of two parts – a lump-sum fee as well as a per-unit charge. In general, such a pricing technique only occurs in partially or fully monopolistic markets. It is designed to enable the firm to capture more consumer surplus than it otherwise would in a non-discriminating pricing environment. Two-part tariffs may also exist in competitive markets when consumers are uncertain about their ultimate demand. Health club consumers, for example, may be uncertain about their level of future commitment to an exercise regimen. Two-part tariffs are easy to implement when connection or entrance fees can be charged along with a price per unit consumed.

Price discrimination is a microeconomic pricing strategy where identical or largely similar goods or services are sold at different prices by the same provider in different market segments. Price discrimination is distinguished from product differentiation by the more substantial difference in production cost for the differently priced products involved in the latter strategy. Price discrimination essentially relies on the variation in the customers' willingness to pay and in the elasticity of their demand. For price discrimination to succeed, a firm must have market power, such as a dominant market share, product uniqueness, sole pricing power, etc. All prices under price discrimination are higher than the equilibrium price in a perfectly competitive market. However, some prices under price discrimination may be lower than the price charged by a single-price monopolist. Price discrimination is utilized by the monopolist to recapture some deadweight loss. This Pricing strategy enables firms to capture additional consumer surplus and maximize their profits while benefiting some consumers at lower prices. Price discrimination can take many forms and is prevalent in many industries, from education and telecommunications to healthcare.

Monopoly profit is an inflated level of profit due to the monopolistic practices of an enterprise.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Durable good</span> Good that has long term use

In economics, a durable good or a hard good or consumer durable is a good that does not quickly wear out or, more specifically, one that yields utility over time rather than being completely consumed in one use. Items like bricks could be considered perfectly durable goods because they should theoretically never wear out. Highly durable goods such as refrigerators or cars usually continue to be useful for several years of use, so durable goods are typically characterized by long periods between successive purchases.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Market structure</span> Differentiation of firms by goods and operations

Market structure, in economics, depicts how firms are differentiated and categorised based on the types of goods they sell (homogeneous/heterogeneous) and how their operations are affected by external factors and elements. Market structure makes it easier to understand the characteristics of diverse markets.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Competition (economics)</span> Economic scenario

In economics, competition is a scenario where different economic firms are in contention to obtain goods that are limited by varying the elements of the marketing mix: price, product, promotion and place. In classical economic thought, competition causes commercial firms to develop new products, services and technologies, which would give consumers greater selection and better products. The greater the selection of a good is in the market, the lower prices for the products typically are, compared to what the price would be if there was no competition (monopoly) or little competition (oligopoly).

Stephen W. Salant is an economist who has done extensive research in applied microeconomics. His 1975 model of speculative attacks in the gold market was adapted by Paul Krugman and others to explain speculative attacks in foreign exchange markets. Hundreds of journal articles and books on financial speculative attacks followed.

A bilateral monopoly is a market structure consisting of both a monopoly and a monopsony.

Within economics, margin is a concept used to describe the current level of consumption or production of a good or service. Margin also encompasses various concepts within economics, denoted as marginal concepts, which are used to explain the specific change in the quantity of goods and services produced and consumed. These concepts are central to the economic theory of marginalism. This is a theory that states that economic decisions are made in reference to incremental units at the margin, and it further suggests that the decision on whether an individual or entity will obtain additional units of a good or service depends on the marginal utility of the product.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Profit (economics)</span> Concept in economics

In economics, profit is the difference between revenue that an economic entity has received from its outputs and total costs of its inputs, also known as surplus value. It is equal to total revenue minus total cost, including both explicit and implicit costs.

The Coase conjecture, developed first by Ronald Coase, is an argument in monopoly theory. The conjecture sets up a situation in which a monopolist sells a durable good to a market where resale is impossible and faces consumers who have different valuations. The conjecture proposes that a monopolist that does not know individuals' valuations will have to sell its product at a low price if the monopolist tries to separate consumers by offering different prices in different periods. This is because the monopolist is, in effect, in price competition with itself over several periods and the consumer with the highest valuation, if he is patient enough, can simply wait for the lowest price. Thus the monopolist will have to offer a competitive price in the first period which will be low. The conjecture holds only when there is an infinite time horizon, as otherwise a possible action for the monopolist would be to announce a very high price until the second to last period, and then sell at the static monopoly price in the last period. The monopolist could avoid this problem by committing to a stable linear pricing strategy or adopting other business strategies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Monopoly price</span> Aspect of monopolistic markets

In microeconomics, a monopoly price is set by a monopoly. A monopoly occurs when a firm lacks any viable competition and is the sole producer of the industry's product. Because a monopoly faces no competition, it has absolute market power and can set a price above the firm's marginal cost.

In industrial organization and in particular monopoly theory, a durapolist or durable good monopolist is a producer that manipulates the durability of its product. The term was coined by antitrust scholar Barak Orbach. The concept is used to explain how durable good manufacturers overcome the durability problem of their products and persuade consumers to purchase new goods. The concept utilizes a monopolist to simplify explanations regarding product durability.

References

  1. Coase versus Pacman: Who Eats Whom in the Durable Goods Monopoly? Author(s): Nils-Henrik Morch von der Fehr and Kai-Uwe Kuhn Source: The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 103, No. 4, (Aug., 1995), pp. 785–812 Published by: The University of Chicago Press
  2. Bagnoli, M., Salant, S.W., & Swierzbinski, J.E. "Durable-Goods Monopoly with Discrete Demand". The Journal of Political Economy , 97.6 (December 1989), pp. 1459–1478. (JSTOR)

Further reading

  1. Church, J. & Ware, R: Industrial Organization – A Strategic Approach pp 141–145
  2. Nils-Henrik Morch von der Fehr & Kai-Uwe Kuhn: "Coase versus Pacman: Who Eats Whom in the Durable-Goods Monopoly?" The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 103, No. 4 (August, 1995), pp. 785–812