Consider the following Bertrand game involving two firms producing differentiated products. Firms have no costs of production. Firm 1's demand is \\[ q_{1}=1-p_{1}+b p_{2} \\] where \(b > 0 .\) A symmetric equation holds for firm 2 's demand. a. Solve for the Nash equilibrium of the simultaneous price-choice game. b. Compute the firms' outputs and profits. c. Represent the equilibrium on a best-response function diagram. Show how an increase in \(b\) would change the equilibrium. Draw a representative isoprofit curve for firm 1

Short Answer

Expert verified
Answer: As the differentiation parameter \(b\) increases, the Nash equilibrium prices for both firms increase, while their outputs remain constant at a half. The profits for both firms also increase due to higher equilibrium prices. This increase in differentiation leads to steeper best-response functions, as each firm becomes less sensitive to the other firm's actions, allowing them to charge higher prices without losing too much market share.

Step by step solution

01

Find the profit functions of both firms.

To find the Nash equilibrium prices, we first need to find the profit functions for both firms. Since there are no costs, profit is simply given by revenue, which can be calculated as price times quantity. For firm 1, the profit function is: \\[ \pi_{1} = p_{1}q_{1} = p_{1}(1 - p_{1} + b p_{2}) \\] Similarly, for firm 2, the profit function is: \\[ \pi_{2} = p_{2}q_{2} = p_{2}(1 - p_{2} + b p_{1}) \\]
02

Find the Best-Response functions of both firms.

Now we need to find the best-response functions of both firms by maximizing their profits. To do this, we take the first derivative of the profit functions concerning their respective prices and set them equal to zero. For firm 1, the first-order condition is: \\[ \frac{\partial \pi_{1}}{\partial p_{1}} = 1 - 2 p_{1} + b p_{2} = 0 \\] For firm 2, the first-order condition is: \\[ \frac{\partial \pi_{2}}{\partial p_{2}} = 1 - 2 p_{2} + b p_{1} = 0 \\]
03

Solve the system of equations.

We now have a system of two linear equations with two unknowns (\(p_{1}\) and \(p_{2}\)). We can solve this system to find the Nash equilibrium prices. From the first-order condition for firm 1, we can solve for \(p_1\): \\[ p_{1} = \frac{1 + b p_{2}}{2} \\] Substitute this expression for \(p_1\) into the first-order condition for firm 2: \\[ 1 - 2 p_{2} + b \left(\frac{1 + b p_{2}}{2}\right) = 0 \\] Solve for \(p_2\): \\[ p_{2} = \frac{1}{2(2 - b)} \\] Substitute the expression for \(p_2\) back into the expression for \(p_1\): \\[ p_{1} = \frac{1 + b\left(\frac{1}{2(2 - b)}\right)}{2} = \frac{1}{2(2 - b)} \\] Thus, the Nash equilibrium prices are \(p_{1}^* = p_{2}^* = \frac{1}{2(2 - b)}\). #b. Computing outputs and profits#
04

Calculate companies' quantities.

Now that we have the Nash equilibrium prices, we can calculate the output of both firms by plugging these prices into their respective demand functions. For firm 1: \\[ q_{1}^* = 1 - p_{1}^* + b p_{2}^* = 1 - \frac{1}{2(2 - b)} + b\left(\frac{1}{2(2 - b)}\right) = \frac{1}{2} \\] For firm 2: \\[ q_{2}^* = 1 - p_{2}^* + b p_{1}^* = 1 - \frac{1}{2(2 - b)} + b\left(\frac{1}{2(2 - b)}\right) = \frac{1}{2} \\] Thus, the Nash equilibrium outputs are \(q_{1}^* = q_{2}^* = \frac{1}{2}\).
05

Calculate companies' profits.

Since the firms have no costs, their profits are equal to their revenues. We can use the Nash equilibrium prices and outputs to calculate these profits. For firm 1: \\[ \pi_{1}^* = p_{1}^* q_{1}^* = \left(\frac{1}{2(2 - b)}\right) \left(\frac{1}{2}\right) = \frac{1}{4(2 - b)} \\] For firm 2: \\[ \pi_{2}^* = p_{2}^* q_{2}^* = \left(\frac{1}{2(2 - b)}\right) \left(\frac{1}{2}\right) = \frac{1}{4(2 - b)} \\] Thus, the Nash equilibrium profits are \(\pi_{1}^* = \pi_{2}^* = \frac{1}{4(2 - b)}\). #c. Representing the equilibrium on a diagram#
06

Sketch the Best-Response functions and equilibrium.

To represent the equilibrium on a diagram, we first need to draw the best-response functions of both firms. The best-response function for firm 1 is obtained by solving its first-order condition for \(p_1\): \\[ p_{1} = \frac{1 + b p_{2}}{2} \\] Similarly, the best-response function for firm 2 is obtained by solving its first-order condition for \(p_2\): \\[ p_{2} = \frac{1 + b p_{1}}{2} \\] First, sketch the best-response functions for both firms on a diagram, with \(p_1\) on the vertical axis and \(p_2\) on the horizontal axis. Label these functions as \(BR_1(p_2)\) and \(BR_2(p_1)\), respectively. Next, draw a representative isoprofit curve for firm 1. This curve will be upward-sloping and convex, reflecting the trade-off between raising its price to increase its profit margin and losing market share to its competitor. Finally, plot the Nash equilibrium values of \(p_1\) and \(p_2\) that we obtained in part (a). This point will be the intersection of the best-response functions and will lie on the representative isoprofit curve of firm 1.
07

Analyze the effect of an increase in \(b\).

Now we examine the effect of an increase in the differentiation parameter \(b\). Recall that the Nash equilibrium prices are given by \(p_{1}^* = p_{2}^* = \frac{1}{2(2 - b)}\). As \(b\) increases, the denominator of the Nash equilibrium prices shrinks, causing the prices to increase. In other words, an increase in \(b\) results in higher Nash equilibrium prices for both firms. On the diagram, this implies that the best-response functions of both firms will become steeper as \(b\) increases. This is because an increase in differentiation makes each firm less sensitive to the other firm's actions, allowing them to charge higher prices without losing too much market share. In summary, an increase in \(b\) leads to higher Nash equilibrium prices, steeper best-response functions, and a shift in the representative isoprofit curve for firm 1.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

  • Full Textbook Solutions

    Get detailed explanations and key concepts

  • Unlimited Al creation

    Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

  • Ads-free access

    To over 500 millions flashcards

  • Money-back guarantee

    We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with Vaia!

One App. One Place for Learning.

All the tools & learning materials you need for study success - in one app.

Get started for free

Most popular questions from this chapter

Hotelling's model of competition on a linear beach is used widely in many applications, but one application that is difficult to study in the model is free entry. Free entry is easiest to study in a model with symmetric firms, but more than two firms on a line cannot be symmetric because those located nearest the endpoints will have only one neighboring rival, whereas those located nearer the middle will have two. To avoid this problem, Steven Salop introduced competition on a circle. \(^{18}\) As in the Hotelling model, demanders are located at each point, and each demands one unit of the good. A consumer's surplus equals \(v\) (the value of consuming the good) minus the price paid for the good as well as the cost of having to travel to buy from the firm. Let this travel cost be \(t d\), where \(t\) is a parameter measuring how burdensome travel is and \(d\) is the distance traveled (note that we are here assuming a linear rather than a quadratic travel-cost function, in contrast to Example 15.5 . Initially, we take as given that there are \(n\) firms in the market and that each has the same cost function \(C_{i}=K+c q_{i}\) where \(K\) is the sunk cost required to enter the market [this will come into play in part (e) of the question, where we consider free entry] and \(c\) is the constant marginal cost of production. For simplicity, assume that the circumference of the circle equals 1 and that the \(n\) firms are located evenly around the circle at intervals of \(1 / n\). The \(n\) firms choose prices \(p_{i}\) simultancously. a. Each firm \(i\) is free to choose its own price \(\left(p_{i}\right)\) but is constrained by the price charged by its nearest neighbor to either side. Let \(p^{*}\) be the price these firms set in a symmetric equilibrium. Explain why the extent of any firm's market on either side \((x)\) is given by the equation $$p+t x=p^{*}+t[(1 / n)-x]$$ b. Given the pricing decision analyzed in part (a), firm \(i\) sells \(q_{i}=2 x\) because it has a market on both sides. Calculate the profit-maximizing price for this firm as a function of \(p^{*}, c, t,\) and \(n\) c. Noting that in a symmetric equilibrium all firms' prices will be equal to \(p^{*},\) show that \(p_{i}=p^{*}=c+t / n .\) Explain this result intuitively. d. Show that a firm's profits are \(t / n^{2}-K\) in equilibrium. e. What will the number of firms \(n^{*}\) be in long-run equilibrium in which firms can freely choose to enter? f. Calculate the socially optimal level of differentiation in this model, defined as the number of firms (and products) that minimizes the sum of production costs plus demander travel costs. Show that this number is precisely half the number calculated in part (e). Hence this model illustrates the possibility of overdifferentiation.

Let \(c_{i}\) be the constant marginal and average cost for firm \(i\) (so that firms may have different marginal costs). Suppose demand is given by \(P=1-Q\) a. Calculate the Nash equilibrium quantities assuming there are two firms in a Cournot market. Also compute market output, market price, firm profits, industry profits, consumer surplus, and total welfare. b. Represent the Nash equilibrium on a best-response function diagram. Show how a reduction in firm 1 's cost would change the equilibrium. Draw a representative isoprofit for firm 1

This question will explore signaling when entry deterrence is impossible; thus, the signaling firm accommodates its rival's entry. Assume deterrence is impossible because the two firms do not pay a sunk cost to enter or remain in the market. The setup of the model will follow Example \(15.4,\) so the calculations there will aid the solution of this problem. In particular, firm \(i\) 's demand is given by $$q_{i}=a_{i}-p_{i}+\frac{p_{j}}{2}$$ where \(a_{i}\) is product \(i\) 's attribute (say, quality). Production is costless. Firm 1's attribute can be one of two values: either \(a_{1}=1\) in which case we say firm 1 is the low type, or \(a_{1}=2,\) in which case we say it is the high type. Assume there is no discounting across periods for simplicity. a. Compute the Nash equilibrium of the game of complete information in which firm 1 is the high type and firm 2 knows that firm 1 is the high type. b. Compute the Nash equilibrium of the game in which firm 1 is the low type and firm 2 knows that firm 1 is the low type. c. Solve for the Bayesian-Nash equilibrium of the game of incomplete information in which firm 1 can be either type with equal probability. Firm 1 knows its type, but firm 2 only knows the probabilities. Because we did not spend time this chapter on Bayesian games, you may want to consult Chapter 8 (especially Example 8.7 ). d. Which of firm 1 's types gains from incomplete information? Which type would prefer complete information (and thus would have an incentive to signal its type if possible)? Does firm 2 earn more profit on average under complete information or under incomplete information? e. Consider a signaling variant of the model chat has two periods. Firms 1 and 2 choose prices in the first period, when firm 2 has incomplete information about firm 1 's type. Firm 2 observes firm 1 's price in this period and uses the information to update its beliefs about firm 1's type. Then firms engage in another period of price competition. Show that there is a separating equilibrium in which each type of firm 1 charges the same prices as computed in part (d). You may assume that, if firm 1 chooses an out-of-equilibrium price in the first period, then firm 2 believes that firm 1 is the low type with probability 1 . Hint: To prove the existence of a separating equilibrium, show that the loss to the low type from trying to pool in the first period exceeds the second-period gain from having convinced firm 2 that it is the high type. Use your answers from parts (a)-(d) where possible to aid in your solution.

Assume for simplicity that a monopolist has no costs of production and faces a demand curve given by \(Q=150-P\) a. Calculate the profit-maximizing price-quantity combination for this monopolist. Also calculate the monopolist's profit. b. Suppose instead that there are two firms in the market facing the demand and cost conditions just described for their identical products. Firms choose quantities simultaneously as in the Cournot model. Compute the outputs in the Nash equilibrium. Also compute market output, price, and firm profits. c. Suppose the two firms choose prices simultaneously as in the Bertrand model. Compute the prices in the Nash equilibrium. Also compute firm output and profit as well as market output. d. Graph the demand curve and indicate where the market price-quantity combinations from parts (a)-(c) appear on the curve.

Recall the Hotelling model of competition on a linear beach from Example \(15.5 .\) Suppose for simplicity that ice cream stands can locate only at the two ends of the line segment (zoning prohibits commercial development in the middle of the beach). This question asks you to analyze an entry-deterring strategy involving product proliferation. a. Consider the subgame in which firm \(A\) has two ice cream stands, one at each end of the beach, and \(B\) locates along with \(A\) at the right endpoint. What is the Nash equilibrium of this subgame? Hint: Bertrand competition ensues at the right endpoint. b. If \(B\) must sink an entry cost \(K_{B}\), would it choose to enter given that firm \(A\) is in both ends of the market and remains there after entry? c. Is \(A\) 's product proliferation strategy credible? Or would \(A\) exit the right end of the market after \(B\) enters? To answer these questions, compare \(A\) 's profits for the case in which it has a stand on the left side and both it and \(B\) have stands on the right to the case in which \(A\) has one stand on the left end and \(B\) has one stand on the right end (so \(B\) 's entry has driven \(A\) out of the right side of the market).

See all solutions

What do you think about this solution?

We value your feedback to improve our textbook solutions.

Study anywhere. Anytime. Across all devices.

Sign-up for free