I find that interconnection might cause the market to be less competitive, and might lead to an increase in the price firms charge for their product. Absent interconnection, firms compete for a consumer for two reasons. The first reason is to obtain revenue from selling the product to a consumer (as in the case without network effects). The second reason is that by expanding the network by one more consumer, the product becomes more attractive to all other consumers. Interconnection eliminates the second reason—when firms interconnect, they are no longer concerned with consumers' following the crowd. I show that consumers and society might be worse off from interconnection. I focus on two factors that make the (post-interconnection) price increase larger: consumer expectations that are highly sensitive to prices and consumers putting a high value on small increases in network size at the equilibrium market shares. Both of these factors make firms highly competitive, but only if the firms' products' networks are not interconnected."> I find that interconnection might cause the market to be less competitive, and might lead to an increase in the price firms charge for their product. Absent interconnection, firms compete for a consumer for two reasons. The first reason is to obtain revenue from selling the product to a consumer (as in the case without network effects). The second reason is that by expanding the network by one more consumer, the product becomes more attractive to all other consumers. Interconnection eliminates the second reason—when firms interconnect, they are no longer concerned with consumers' following the crowd. I show that consumers and society might be worse off from interconnection. I focus on two factors that make the (post-interconnection) price increase larger: consumer expectations that are highly sensitive to prices and consumers putting a high value on small increases in network size at the equilibrium market shares. Both of these factors make firms highly competitive, but only if the firms' products' networks are not interconnected."> I find that interconnection might cause the market to be less competitive, and might lead to an increase in the price firms charge for their product. Absent interconnection, fi">
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jindec/v63y2015i1p74-99.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Anti-Competitive Interconnection: the effects of the elasticity of consumers' expectations and the shape of the network effects function

Author

Listed:
  • Alexei Alexandrov
Abstract
type="main"> I find that interconnection might cause the market to be less competitive, and might lead to an increase in the price firms charge for their product. Absent interconnection, firms compete for a consumer for two reasons. The first reason is to obtain revenue from selling the product to a consumer (as in the case without network effects). The second reason is that by expanding the network by one more consumer, the product becomes more attractive to all other consumers. Interconnection eliminates the second reason—when firms interconnect, they are no longer concerned with consumers' following the crowd. I show that consumers and society might be worse off from interconnection. I focus on two factors that make the (post-interconnection) price increase larger: consumer expectations that are highly sensitive to prices and consumers putting a high value on small increases in network size at the equilibrium market shares. Both of these factors make firms highly competitive, but only if the firms' products' networks are not interconnected.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexei Alexandrov, 2015. "Anti-Competitive Interconnection: the effects of the elasticity of consumers' expectations and the shape of the network effects function," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 63(1), pages 74-99, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jindec:v:63:y:2015:i:1:p:74-99
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/joie.12070
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey M. Perloff & Steven C. Salop, 1985. "Equilibrium with Product Differentiation," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 52(1), pages 107-120.
    2. Park, Jong-Hun & Zhang, Anming & Zhang, Yimin, 2001. "Analytical models of international alliances in the airline industry," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 865-886, November.
    3. Sjaak Hurkens & Ángel L. López, 2014. "Mobile Termination, Network Externalities and Consumer Expectations," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 124(579), pages 1005-1039, September.
    4. Marc Rysman & Timothy Simcoe, 2008. "Patents and the Performance of Voluntary Standard-Setting Organizations," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 54(11), pages 1920-1934, November.
    5. Farrell, Joseph & Saloner, Garth, 1992. "Converters, Compatibility, and the Control of Interfaces," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(1), pages 9-35, March.
    6. Luís Cabral, 2011. "Dynamic Price Competition with Network Effects," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(1), pages 83-111.
    7. Erik Brynjolfsson & Chris F. Kemerer, 1996. "Network Externalities in Microcomputer Software: An Econometric Analysis of the Spreadsheet Market," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 42(12), pages 1627-1647, December.
    8. Grilo, Isabel & Shy, Oz & Thisse, Jacques-Francois, 2001. "Price competition when consumer behavior is characterized by conformity or vanity," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 80(3), pages 385-408, June.
    9. Werden, Gregory J, 1996. "A Robust Test for Consumer Welfare Enhancing Mergers among Sellers of Differentiated Products," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 409-413, December.
    10. Daniel F. Spulber, 2008. "Unlocking Technology: Antitrust And Innovation," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(4), pages 915-966.
    11. Nicholas Economides, 1997. "The Economics of Networks," Brazilian Electronic Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, vol. 1(0), December.
    12. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1986. "Product Compatibility Choice in a Market with Technological Progress," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(0), pages 146-165, Suppl. No.
    13. David A. Malueg & Marius Schwartz, 2006. "Compatibility Incentives Of A Large Network Facing Multiple Rivals," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(4), pages 527-567, December.
    14. Ramon Casadesus-Masanell & Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda, 2008. "Platform Competition, Compatibility, and Social Efficiency," Working Papers 08-32, NET Institute.
    15. Economides, Nicholas, 1989. "Desirability of Compatibility in the Absence of Network Externalities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 79(5), pages 1165-1181, December.
    16. Katz, Michael L & Shapiro, Carl, 1985. "Network Externalities, Competition, and Compatibility," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(3), pages 424-440, June.
    17. Gandal, Neil, 1995. "Competing Compatibility Standards and Network Externalities in the PC Software Market," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 77(4), pages 599-608, November.
    18. Filomena, GARCIA & Cecilia, VERGARI, 2008. "Compatibility Choice in vertically differentiated technologies," Discussion Papers (ECON - Département des Sciences Economiques) 2008012, Université catholique de Louvain, Département des Sciences Economiques.
    19. Senay Sokullu, 2012. "Nonparametric Analysis of Two-Sided Markets," Bristol Economics Discussion Papers 12/628, School of Economics, University of Bristol, UK.
    20. Richard Schmalensee, 2009. "Should New Merger Guidelines Give UPP Market Definition?," Antitrust Chronicle, Competition Policy International, vol. 12.
    21. Corts, Kenneth S. & Lederman, Mara, 2009. "Software exclusivity and the scope of indirect network effects in the U.S. home video game market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 121-136, March.
    22. Farrell Joseph & Shapiro Carl, 2010. "Antitrust Evaluation of Horizontal Mergers: An Economic Alternative to Market Definition," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-41, March.
    23. Christopher R. Knittel & Victor Stango, 2009. "How Does Incompatibility Affect Prices?: Evidence From Atm'S," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 557-582, September.
    24. Griva, Krina & Vettas, Nikolaos, 2011. "Price competition in a differentiated products duopoly under network effects," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 85-97, March.
    25. Dennis W. Carlton, 2010. "Revising The Horizontal Merger Guidelines," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(3), pages 619-652.
    26. Charles F. Manski, 2004. "Measuring Expectations," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(5), pages 1329-1376, September.
    27. Steven C. Salop, 1979. "Monopolistic Competition with Outside Goods," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 141-156, Spring.
    28. Neil Gandal, 2002. "Compatibility, Standardization, and Network Effects: Some Policy Implications," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 18(1), pages 80-91, Spring.
    29. Carmen Matutes & Pierre Regibeau, 1988. ""Mix and Match": Product Compatibility without Network Externalities," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 19(2), pages 221-234, Summer.
    30. Ingo Vogelsang, 2003. "Price Regulation of Access to Telecommunications Networks," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 41(3), pages 830-862, September.
    31. Miao Chun-Hui, 2009. "Limiting Compatibility in Two-sided Markets," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 8(4), pages 1-19, December.
    32. Daniel F. Spulber, 2008. "Consumer Coordination In The Small And In The Large: Implications For Antitrust In Markets With Network Effects," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 207-262.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Filomena Garcia & Cecilia Vergari, 2016. "Revealing Incentives for Compatibility Provision in Vertically Differentiated Network Industries," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(3), pages 720-749, September.
    2. M. L. Roark & L. Fox O’Mahony, 2023. "Real Property Transactions in the Network Society: Platform Real Estate, Housing Hactivism, and the Re-scaling of Public and Private Power," Journal of Consumer Policy, Springer, vol. 46(4), pages 445-463, December.
    3. Wu, Cheng-Han, 2019. "Licensing to a competitor and strategic royalty choice in a dynamic duopoly," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 279(3), pages 840-853.
    4. Ding, Rong & Ko, Chiu Yu & Shen, Bo, 2022. "Partial compatibility in two-sided markets: Equilibrium and welfare analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Alexei Alexandrov, 2008. "Interconnecting Differentiated Networks," Working Papers 08-07, NET Institute, revised Oct 2008.
    2. Ewald Scherm & Christian Maaß, 2006. "Zum Stellenwert der Netzwerkökonomik in der Strategie-/Marketingforschung —Eine Analyse empirischer Untersuchungen," Metrika: International Journal for Theoretical and Applied Statistics, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 27-46, March.
    3. Gastón Llanes & Andrea Mantovani & Francisco Ruiz-Aliseda, 2019. "Entry into Complementary Good Markets with Network Effects," Strategy Science, INFORMS, vol. 4(4), pages 262-282, December.
    4. Maruyama Masayoshi & Zennyo Yusuke, 2013. "Compatibility and the Product Life Cycle in Two-Sided Markets," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 12(2), pages 131-155, June.
    5. Oz Shy, 2011. "A Short Survey of Network Economics," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 38(2), pages 119-149, March.
    6. Charles Z. Liu & Chris F. Kemerer & Michael D. Smith, 2007. "Standards Competition In The Presence Of Digital Conversion Technology: An Empirical Analysis Of The Flash Memory Card Market," Working Papers 07-17, NET Institute, revised Sep 2007.
    7. Nicholas Economides & Brian Viard, 2003. "Pricing of Complementary Goods and Network Effects," Working Papers 03-12, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    8. Knittel Christopher R. & Stango Victor, 2008. "Incompatibility, Product Attributes and Consumer Welfare: Evidence from ATMs," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 8(1), pages 1-42, January.
    9. Ding, Rong & Ko, Chiu Yu & Shen, Bo, 2022. "Partial compatibility in two-sided markets: Equilibrium and welfare analysis," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    10. Ron Adner & Jianqing Chen & Feng Zhu, 2020. "Frenemies in Platform Markets: Heterogeneous Profit Foci as Drivers of Compatibility Decisions," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 66(6), pages 2432-2451, June.
    11. Dohoon Kim, 2018. "Equilibrium Analysis for Platform Developers in Two-Sided Market with Backward Compatibility," Games, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-24, October.
    12. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899.
    13. Justus Baron & Daniel F. Spulber, 2018. "Technology Standards and Standard Setting Organizations: Introduction to the Searle Center Database," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(3), pages 462-503, September.
    14. Christopher R. Knittel & Victor Stango, 2003. "Compatibility and pricing with indirect network effects: evidence from ATMs," Working Paper Series WP-03-33, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
    15. Nicholas Economides, 1997. "The Economics of Networks," Brazilian Electronic Journal of Economics, Department of Economics, Universidade Federal de Pernambuco, vol. 1(0), December.
    16. Manfred Stadler & Céline Tobler Trexler & Maximiliane Unsorg, 2022. "The Perpetual Trouble with Network Products Why IT Firms Choose Partial Compatibility," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 22(4), pages 903-913, December.
    17. Jiawei Chen & Ulrich Doraszelski & Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., 2009. "Avoiding market dominance: product compatibility in markets with network effects," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 40(3), pages 455-485, September.
    18. Jullien, Bruno & Pavan, Alessandro & Rysman, Marc, 2021. "Two-sided Markets, Pricing, and Network Effects," TSE Working Papers 21-1238, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    19. Kim, Sang-Hyun & Choi, Jay Pil, 2015. "Optimal compatibility in systems markets," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 106-118.
    20. Fabio Manenti & Ernesto Somma, 2008. "One-Way Compatibility, Two-Way Compatibility and Entry in Network Industries," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 301-322.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jindec:v:63:y:2015:i:1:p:74-99. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-1821 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.