Prices, capacities and service quality in a congestible Bertrand duopoly

We study the duopolistic interaction between congestible facilities that supply perfect substitutes. Firms are assumed to make sequential decisions on capacities and prices. Since the outcomes directly affect consumers’ time cost of accessing or using a facility, the capacity sharing rule is endogenous. We study this two-stage game for different firm objectives and compare the duopoly outcomes with those under monopoly and at the social optimum. Our findings include the following. First, for profit maximizing firms both capacity provision and service quality, defined as the inverse of time costs of using the facility, are distorted under duopoly: they are below the socially optimal levels. This contrasts with the monopoly outcome, where pricing and capacity provision are such that the monopolist does provide the socially optimal level of service quality. Second, duopoly prices are lower than monopoly prices, but higher than in the social optimum. Hence, while price competition between duopolists yields benefits for consumer, capacity competition is harmful. Third, price-capacity competition implies that higher capacity costs may lead to higher profits for both facilities. Finally, if firms also care about output, this mainly affects pricing behavior; strategic interaction in capacities are much less affected. If duopolists attach a higher weight to output and a correspondingly lower weight to profits, this leads to a deterioration of the quality of service.

[1]  Anming Zhang,et al.  Airport charges and capacity expansion: effects of concessions and privatization , 2003 .

[2]  Bertrand competition and Cournot outcomes: a correction , 2004 .

[3]  Jan K. Brueckner,et al.  Network Structure and Airline Scheduling , 2004 .

[4]  Krishnendu Ghosh Dastidar,et al.  Comparing Cournot and Bertrand in a Homogeneous Product Market , 1997 .

[5]  Giovanni Maggi,et al.  Strategic Trade Policies with Endogenous Mode of Competition , 1996 .

[6]  Jacques-François Thisse,et al.  Price competition, quality and income disparities , 1979 .

[7]  Krishnendu Ghosh Dastidar,et al.  On the existence of pure strategy Bertrand equilibrium , 1995 .

[8]  A. Zhang,et al.  CONCESSION REVENUE AND OPTIMAL AIRPORT PRICING , 1997 .

[9]  D. Starkie Reforming UK Airport Regulation , 2001 .

[10]  J. Tirole The Theory of Industrial Organization , 1988 .

[11]  André de Palma,et al.  Congestion and Game in Capacity: a Duopoly Analysis in the Presence of Network Externalities , 1989 .

[12]  Kay Mitusch,et al.  Competition with Congestible Networks , 2007 .

[13]  Robin Mason,et al.  Simple competitive Internet pricing , 2000, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[14]  David M. Kreps,et al.  Quantity Precommitment and Bertrand Competition Yield Cournot Outcomes , 1983 .

[15]  Jati K. Sengupta,et al.  Competition and Efficiency , 2021, Knowledge, Patents, Power.

[16]  Steven A. Morrison,et al.  ESTIMATION OF LONG-RUN PRICES AND INVESTMENT LEVELS FOR AIRPORT RUNWAYS , 1983 .

[17]  A. Shaked,et al.  Relaxing price competition through product differentiation , 1982 .

[18]  S. Proost,et al.  Vertical and Horizontal Tax Competition in the Transport Sector , 2004 .

[19]  A. Spence Monopoly, Quality, and Regulation , 1975 .

[20]  K. V. Dender Duopoly prices under congested access , 2005 .

[21]  P. Nijkamp,et al.  SECOND BEST CONGESTION PRICING: THE CASE OF AN UNTOLLED ALTERNATIVE. IN: URBAN TRANSPORT , 1996 .

[22]  D. Gillen,et al.  Bundling, integration and the delivered price of air travel: are low cost carriers full service competitors? , 2003 .

[23]  Xavier Wauthy,et al.  Bertrand competition and Cournot outcomes: further results , 2000 .

[24]  Tae Hoon Oum,et al.  Alternative Forms of Economic Regulation and their Efficiency Implications for Airports , 2004 .

[25]  B. Nalebuff,et al.  Bundling , 1999 .