Market accessibility and the entry decision: A theoretical and experimental examination.

Abstract

The role of market accessibility and entry is the central theme of this dissertation. Two theoretical models of oligopoly theory are examined in a controlled laboratory market setting. Experimental testing of Contestability Theory is extended beyond the natural monopoly case and a "safe haven" provides subjects with a viable alternative to the "contestable" market. Evidence reported supports the conclusion that the contestable market is robust to the introduction of the alternate market. The theory of Bertrand-Edgeworth duopoly is explored from a game theoretic perspective with special attention to buyer queuing rule assumptions. Experimental evidence underscores sensitivity of market outcomes to the queuing rule adopted. The presence of excess capacity relative to market demand tends to push theoretical Bertrand-Edgeworth equilibria toward competitive levels. This result is substantiated by experimental evidence and is independent of the queuing rule assumed. The similarity between the Bertrand-Edgeworth excess capacity case and a contestable natural monopoly market is investigated. The presence of excess capacity/potential entrants is shown to exert more downward pressure on observed laboratory market prices than the presence of additional competitors alone. This result is at odds with the traditional Structure-Conduct-Performance Paradigm. A herfindahl index calculated from experimental results has almost no power to predict market outcome.