Abstract
In their seminal solution of the chain store paradox Kreps and Wilson assumed that the incumbent monopolist is predisposed, with a small probability, to ght entry. Milgrom and Roberts suggested to view this predisposition to ght as a result of precommitment to an aggressive course of action. However, they did not examine whether such an ability to make commitments is actually chosen by a rational incumbent monopolist. The present paper fills this gap. We assume that the monopolist has access to an appropriate commitment mechanism, with a small probability. Due to the possibility of misunderstanding or communication error, commitments are not perfectly observable. Otherwise, the assumptions of Kreps and Wilson are maintained. These plausible modifications have drastic implications: Precommitment becomes useless, and reputation effects break down; Selten's chain store paradox comes back in full force.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
