簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 莊程翔
Zhuang, Ernie Cheng-Xiang
論文名稱： 異質商品下連續寡占之產品專業化
Product Specialization in Successive Oligopoly with Differentiated Goods
指導教授： 周瑞賢
Chou, Stephen Jui-Hsien
口試委員: 李宜
Lee, Yi
鄭保志
Cheng, P.C. Roger
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 科技管理學院 - 經濟學系
Department of Economics
論文出版年： 2024
畢業學年度： 112
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 100
中文關鍵詞： 多產品廠商 、產品專業化 、品質競爭 、品質差異化 、非對稱製造商 、連續寡占 、蠶食效果
外文關鍵詞： Multiproduct firms, Product specialization, Quality competition, Quality differentiation, Asymmetric manufacturers, Successive oligopoly, Cannibalization effect
相關次數： 點閱：42  下載：0 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 本文探討在上下游產業中，非對稱製造商在異質產品之連續寡占的產品專業化過程。我們分析替代性（產品間與廠商間）以及相對潛在利潤（高品質商品相對於低品質商品的市場潛在需求）如何推動企業趨向生產單一產品，特別是朝高品質產品的方向。這種轉變在下游廠商尤為明顯，因為多產品廠商產品間的蠶食效果（cannibalization effect）較強。此專業化過程發生於替代性足夠高，且相對潛在利潤也夠高的時候。這個結果揭示了既有假設：各廠商提供單一但相異品質商品的局限性。隨著替代性越高，生產低品質產品的廠商將退出市場，推動該產業朝著連續雙占發展。在極高的相對潛在利潤以及替代性的推動下，這一轉變挑戰了同質產品的既有假設。這種專業化的過程也可能闡明，由於產品特徵或廠商日漸相似，導致替代性增強的影響。此外，儘管下游多產品廠商的專業化為上游製造高階中間財的供應商帶來了好處，但降低了消費者剩餘和社會福利，突顯了制定策略政策以平衡企業成就與整體經濟福祉的重要性。

    This thesis examines the product specialization process within upstream and downstream industries using a model of successive oligopoly, featuring asymmetric manufacturers and differentiated goods. We analyze how both substitutability (among products and firms) and relative potential profitability (the market’s capacity for high-quality goods over low-quality ones) drive the transition from multiproduct to single-product firms, with a particular focus on the shift toward high-quality production. This shift is more pronounced in the downstream dual-quality goods firm, where the cannibalization effect is stronger. This process occurs when sufficiently high substitutability is combined with substantial relative potential profitability, exposing the limitations of existing assumptions that each firm offers a single distinct quality level. As substitutability escalates, the market phases out low-quality producers, steering industries toward a standard successive duopoly configuration. Fueled by significant profitability and substitutability, this shift challenges the prevailing assumptions of uniform product quality. This specialization trajectory might also clarify the impacts of increased substitutability due to different quality product features or firms becoming more similar. Furthermore, while the downstream multi-product firm’s specialization benefits upstream suppliers producing high-quality materials, it also reduces consumer surplus and social welfare. This highlights the need for strategic policies to balance firm achievements with overall economic well-being.

    Abstract (Chinese) i Acknowledgements (Chinese) ii Abstract iii Acknowledgements iv Contents v List of Figures viii List of Tables ix 1 Introduction 1 2 Literature 5 3 Model 9 4 Analysis 13 4.1 Static Analysis 14 4.1.1 Scenario 1: Upstream and Downstream Dual-Quality Producers Offering Varied Quality Goods 14 4.1.2 Scenario 2: Downstream Dual-Quality Producer Specializing in High-Quality Goods 23 4.1.3 Scenario 3: Upstream Dual-Quality Producer Specializing in High-Quality Goods 30 4.1.4 Scenario 4: Standard Successive Duopoly Game 34 4.2 Comparative Static Analysis 39 4.2.1 Quantities and Prices 39 4.2.2 Profits 52 4.2.3 Welfare Analysis 57 4.2.4 Numerical Analysis 59 5 Conclusions 67 Bibliography 71 Appendix 75 A Detailed Derivation Process of Static Analysis 75 A.1 Upstream and Downstream Dual-Quality Producers Offering Varied Quality Goods 75 A.2 Downstream Dual-Quality Producer Specializing in High-Quality Goods 79 A.3 Upstream Dual-Quality Producer Specializing in High-Quality Goods 82 A.4 Standard Successive Duopoly Game 83 B Proof 85 B.1 Proof for Proposition 1 85 B.2 Proof for Remark 1 86 B.3 Proof for Relations 87 B.3.1 Positive Production Conditions in the Upstream: Scenario 1 87 B.3.2 Comparison of the Quantities of Intermediate Goods: Scenario 1 87 B.3.3 Positive Production Conditions in the Downstream: Scenario 1 87 B.3.4 Comparison of the Quantities of Final Goods: Scenario 1 87 B.3.5 Positive Production Conditions in the Upstream: Scenario 2 88 B.3.6 Comparison of the Quantities of Intermediate Goods: Scenario 2 88 B.3.7 Comparison of the Profits of Upstream Firms: Scenario 2 88 B.3.8 Comparison of the Quantities of Final Goods: Scenario 2 89 B.3.9 Comparison of the Prices of Final Goods: Scenario 2 89 B.3.10 Comparison of the Profits of Upstream firms between Scenario 1 and 2 89 B.3.11 Comparison of the Quantities of Intermediate Goods: Scenario 3 90 B.3.12 Positive Production Conditions in the Upstream: Scenario 3 90 B.3.13 Comparison of the Prices of Intermediate Goods: Scenario 3 90 B.3.14 Equilibrium Quantities of Intermediate Goods and Their Relationship to Substitutability: Scenario 1 90 B.3.15 Equilibrium Quantities of Final Goods and Their Relationship to Substitutability: Scenario 1 91 B.3.16 Equilibrium Quantities of Intermediate Goods and Their Relationship to Substitutability: Scenario 2 91 B.3.17 Producer Surplus and Their Relationship to Substitutability: Scenario 3 91 B.3.18 Producer Surplus and Their Relationship to Substitutability: Scenario 4 92 B.3.19 Consumer Surplus and Their Relationship to Substitutability: Scenario 1 92 B.3.20 Consumer Surplus and Their Relationship to Substitutability: Scenario 2 92 B.3.21 Consumer Surplus and Their Relationship to Substitutability: Scenario 3 93 B.3.22 Consumer Surplus and Their Relationship to Substitutability: Scenario 4 93 C Heat Map 95

    Alipranti, M., C. Milliou, and E. Petrakis (2014). Price vs. quantity competition in a vertically related market. Economics Letters 124(1), 122–126.
    Amir, R., P. Erickson, and J. Jin (2017). On the microeconomic foundations of linear demand for differentiated products. Journal of Economic Theory 169, 641–665.
    Arnold, L. G. and V. Arnold (2024). Energy imports and manufacturing exports with successive oligopolies and storage. Energy Economics 133, 107458.
    Basak, D. and L. F. Wang (2016). Endogenous choice of price or quantity contract and the implications of two-part-tariff in a vertical structure. Economics Letters 138, 53–56.
    Belleflamme, P. and E. Toulemonde (2003). Product differentiation in successive vertical oligopolies. Canadian Journal of Economics 36(3), 523–545.
    Chang, W. W. and W. Mayer (1973). Intermediate goods in a general equilibrium trade model. International Economic Review, 447–459.
    Cheng, Y.-L. and S.-K. Peng (2012). Quality and quantity competition in a multiproduct duopoly. Southern Economic Journal 79(1), 180–202.
    Cheng, Y.-L. and S.-K. Peng (2014). Price competition and quality differentiation with multiproduct firms. Journal of Economics 112, 207–223.
    Cheng, Y.-L., S.-K. Peng, and T. Tabuchi (2011). Multiproduct duopoly with vertical differentiation. The BE Journal of Theoretical Economics 11(1), 0000102202193517041800.
    Chou, S. J.-H. (2011). Differentiated products, vertical related markets, and optimal export policy. Review of International Economics 19(3), 449–458.
    Dardis, R. (1967). Intermediate goods and the gain from trade. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 502–509.
    Ebrahim, R., A. Ghoneim, Z. Irani, and Y. Fan (2016). A brand preference and repurchase intention model: the role of consumer experience. Journal of Marketing Management 32(13- 14), 1230–1259.
    Fan, Y. and C. Yang (2020). Competition, product proliferation, and welfare: A study of the us smartphone market. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 12(2), 99–134.
    Gabszewicz, J., D. Laussel, T. Van Ypersele, and S. Zanaj (2013). Market games in successive oligopolies. Journal of Public Economic Theory 15(3), 397–410.
    Ghosh, A., H. Morita, and C.Wang (2022). Welfare improving horizontal mergers in successive oligopoly. The Journal of Industrial Economics 70(1), 89–118.
    Greenhut, M. L. and H. Ohta (1976). Related market conditions and interindustrial mergers. The American Economic Review 66(3), 267–277.
    Greenhut, M. L. and H. Ohta (1979). Vertical integration of successive oligopolists. The American Economic Review 69(1), 137–141.
    Habiger, P. and M. Kopel (2020). Strategic delegation in successive oligopolies with differentiated firms. Economics Letters 194, 109357.
    Johnson, J. P. and D. P. Myatt (2003). Multiproduct quality competition: Fighting brands and product line pruning. American Economic Review 93(3), 748–774.
    Johnson, J. P. and D. P. Myatt (2006). Multiproduct cournot oligopoly. The RAND Journal of Economics 37(3), 583–601.
    Johnson, J. P. and D. P. Myatt (2018). The determinants of product lines. The RAND Journal of Economics 49(3), 541–573.
    Kawabata, Y. (2010). Strategic export policy in vertically related markets. Bulletin of Economic Research 62(2), 109–131.
    Kourandi, F. and I. N. Pinopoulos (2023). Vertical contracting between a vertically integrated firm and a downstream rival. Economic Theory, 1–37.
    Kuehn, J. and R. Lampe (2023). Competition and product composition: Evidence from hollywood. International Journal of Industrial Organization 91, 102981.
    Lin, Y. J. (1988). Oligopoly and vertical integration: Note. The American Economic Review 78(1), 251–254.
    Long, N. V. and Z. Miao (2020). Multiple-quality cournot oligopoly and the role of market size. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 29(4), 932–952.
    Melvin, J. R. (1969). Intermediate goods, the production possibility curve, and gains from trade. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 83(1), 141–151.
    Nariu, T., D. Flath, and M. Okamura (2021). A vertical oligopoly in which entry increases every firm’s profit. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy 30(3), 684–694.
    Nese, G. and O. R. Straume (2007). Industry concentration and strategic trade policy in successive oligopoly. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 7(1), 31–52.
    Nilsen, Ø. A., L. Sørgard, and S. A. Ulsaker (2016). Upstream merger in a successive oligopoly: Who pays the price? International Journal of Industrial Organization 48, 143–172.
    Perry, M. K. (1978). Related market conditions and interindustrial mergers: Comment. The American Economic Review 68(1), 221–224.
    Petruzzellis, L. (2010). Mobile phone choice: technology versus marketing. the brand effect in the italian market. European Journal of Marketing 44(5), 610–634.
    Riedel, J. (1976). Intermediate products and the theory of international trade: A generalization of the pure intermediate good case. The American Economic Review 66(3), 441–447.
    Sanchez, M. and A. Nerja (2024). The role of asymmetric innovation’s sizes in technology licensing under partial vertical integration. Research in Economics, 100958.
    Shih, P.-C., T.-H. Chou, H.Hwang, andY.-S. Lin (2024). Technology licensing under successive monopoly. Review of Industrial Organization 64(3), 327–340.
    Singh, N. and X. Vives (1984). Price and quantity competition in a differentiated duopoly. The RAND Journal of Economics, 546–554.
    Sung, H.-C. (2023). A critical review of current trends in licensing standard essential patents from the perspectives of patent law and supply chain management. Journal of the Patent & Trademark Office Society 103, 431.
    Temporal, P. and K. C. Lee (2000). Hi-tech hi-touch branding: creating brand power in the age of technology. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
    Wu, C. (2017). Strategic aspects of oligopolistic vertical integration. Elsevier.
    Ziss, S. (2005). Horizontal mergers and successive oligopoly. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 5, 99–114.

    QR CODE