Advances in the theoretical literature have
extended the Hotelling model of spatial competition from a uniform distribution
of consumers to the family of log-concave distributions. While a closed form
has been found for the equilibrium locations for symmetric log-concave
distributions, the literature contains no closed form solution for the socially
optimal locations. We provide a closed form solution for the socially optimal
locations: one mean-deviation away from the median. We also derive a formula
for the excess differentiation ratio which complements the bounds previously
derived in the literature, and establish the invariance of this ratio to a form
of mean preserving spread. The equilibrium duopoly locations of several types
of commonly used distributions were discussed in [1]. This paper provides the
closed form solutions for the socially optimal locations to the same set of
distributions. We calculate welfare improvements arising from regulation of
firm location and show how these vary with the distribution of consumers. While
regulating firm locations is sufficient to optimize welfare for symmetric
distributions, additional price regulation is required to ensure social
optimality for asymmetric distributions. These results are significant for
urban policy over firm/store locations.
References
[1]
Meagher, K.J., Teo, E.G.S. and Wang, W. (2008) A Duopoly Location Toolkit: Consumer Densities Which Yield Unique Spatial Duopoly Equilibria. The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, 8, Article 14.
[2]
Fujita, M. and Thisse, J.-F. (2002) Economics of Agglomeration: Cities, Industrial Location, and Regional Growth. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805660
[3]
Caplin, A. and Nalebuff, B. (1991) Aggregation and Imperfect Competition: On the Existence of Equilibrium. Econo-metrica, 59, 1-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2938238
[4]
Dierker, E. (1991) Competition for Customers. In: Cornet, B., d’Aspremont, C. and Mas-Collel, A., Eds., Equilibrium Theory and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 383-402.
[5]
Anderson, S.P., Goeree, J.K. and Ramer, R. (1997) Location, Location, Location. Journal of Economic Theory, 77, 102-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jeth.1997.2323
[6]
Tabuchi, K. and Thisse, J.-F. (1995) Asymmetric Equilibria in Spatial Competition. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 13, 213-227. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0167-7187(94)00449-C
[7]
Scrimitore, M. (2003) Symmetric and Asymmetric Equilibria in a Spatial Duopoly. Dattiloscritto, Lecce.
[8]
Meagher, K. and Zauner, K.G. (2011) Uncertain Spatial Demand and Price Flexibility: A State Space Approach to Duopoly. Economic Letters, 113, 26-28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2011.06.003
[9]
d’Aspremont, C., Gabszewicz, J.J. and Thisse, J.F. (1979) On Hotelling’s “Stability in Competition”. Econometrica, 47, 1145-1150. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1911955
[10]
Hurter, A.P. and Martinich, J.S. (1989) Facility Location and the Theory of Production. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2518-2
[11]
Peeters, D. and Thisse, J.-F. (2000) The Production-Location Problem Revisited. Papers in Regional Science, 79, 221-231. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s101100050044
[12]
Competition Commission, United Kingdom (2008) Groceries Market Investigation, Provisional Decision on Remedies: Background and Overall Assessment. Competition Commission, United Kingdom. http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/inquiries/ref2006/grocery/pdf/decision_remedies_backgr ound.pdf
[13]
Senate Economics References Committee, Commonwealth of Australia (2009) GROCERY Choice Website, Senate Printing Unit, Parliament House, Canberra. http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/grocery_choice_09/report/
[14]
Lederer, P.J. and Hurter, A.P. (1986) Competition of Firms: Discriminatory Pricing and Location. Econometrica, 54, 623-640. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1911311