Vertical Integration as a Source of Hold-up1
Marie-Laure Allain2 , Claire Chambolle3 and Patrick Rey4
Preliminary and incomplete
June 2014
1 We
gratefully acknowledge support from the Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR)
and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) for the French-German cooperation project
“Competition and Bargaining in Vertical Chains,” and from the European Research Council
under the Grant Agreement no. 340903.
2 Ecole Polytechnique (CNRS, Department of Economics, 91128 Palaiseau, France; email:
[email protected]) and CREST.
3 INRA (UR1303 ALISS, 94205 Ivry-sur-Seine, France) and Ecole Polytechnique (Department of Economics, 91128 Palaiseau, France; email: [email protected]).
4 Toulouse School of Economics (GREMAQ and IDEI, Allée de Brienne 31000 Toulouse;
email: [email protected])
1
Introduction
The literature on incomplete contracts has emphasized the role of vertical integration
as a possible solution to hold-up problems.1 Yet in practice antitrust authorities have
instead voiced concerns that vertical integration may generate hold-up problems ... for
rivals.2 To explore this issue, we introduce a classic hold-up concern in a competition
setup, in which two downstream competitors must invest before contracting with one of
two upstream suppliers. Despite the lack of ex ante contracting, under vertical separation the competition among suppliers eliminates any risk of hold-up, and firms obtain
ex post the full return from their investments. By contrast, an integrated supplier has
an incentive to degrade the conditions offered to the downstream rival, so as to expose
it to being held up by the other supplier; this discourages the rival from investing,
which benefits the downstream subsidiary. Hence, vertical integration does not solve
here any hold-up problem for the integrated subsidiary (as no such concern arises under
separation), but does create hold-up concerns for the downstream rival.
To present this insight in a simple way, we first allow suppliers, if they wish so,
to pre-commit themselves, before investment decisions, to a given profit-sharing rule
– fifty-fifty, say. We show that independent suppliers never take this option, so as to
remain flexible in ex post negotiations; an integrated supplier takes instead advantage
of the option, in order to create a hold-up problem for the downstream rival.
Similar insights apply when suppliers can instead degrade the quality of their support. We first consider the case when doing so simply reduces the benefit of the investment, and show that an integrated supplier would like to commit to offering a degraded
support, so as to put the downstream rival at the mercy of the other supplier, whereas
independent suppliers would never do so. Hence, vertical integration generates again
greater hold-up concerns for the rival.
We then consider the arguably more realistic case where degrading the support
provided to one firm also increases the profit obtained by its rival. As long as total
industry profit would be reduced, opting ex ante for offering a degraded support remains
a profitable strategy for an integrated supplier: This again exposes the downstream rival
1
2
See, e.g., Williamson (1975), Klein, Crawford, and Alchian (1978) and Grossman and Hart (1986).
See for example the quote from the TOMTOM/TELE ATLAS decision mentioned in Section 2.3.
1
to being held up later on by the other supplier, even though the integrated supplier
may try to “bribe” the rival into accepting its degraded support. Furthermore, if the
quality of the support is unverifiable, then even ex post an integrated supplier would
have an incentive to degrade the support provided to a downstream rival, compared
to what an independent supplier would do. In that case, vertical integration creates
hold-up problems for the downstream rival, even in the absence of any pre-commitment
possibility, simply by making the integrated supplier less reliable.
Our paper builds on the literature on hold-up and vertical integration.3 Hold-up
concerns arise when part of the return on an agent’s investment can be appropriated ex
post by a trading partner. This concern arises when (i) the trading partner enjoys market
power, or the investment is relationship-specific; and (ii) contracting either cannot take
place ex ante, before investments are sunk, or complete contracts are too costly to write
or to enforce – see, e.g., Williamson (1975) and Hart and Moore (1988) for extensive
discussions of these assumptions; see Grout (1984) and Tirole (1986) for a first formal
analysis of the hold-up problem. In this context, vertical integration has been viewed as
a solution to hold-up problems – see for instance Williamson (1975, 1985), Klein, Crawford, and Alchian (1978), and Grossman and Hart (1986). These first papers however
focus on bilateral monopolies. When several competitors have to invest, vertical integration can still provide a solution to foster one firm’s investment, as shown by Bolton
and Whinston (1993) in a context of supply insurance and downstream competition.
Also, competition among trading partners may contribute to eliminate hold-up concerns (both when negotiating ex post, and possibly by encouraging partners to enhance
ex ante contracting), in which case vertical integration need not affect the subsidiary’s
investment incentives.
XXXXX In an industry with imperfect upstream competition, McLaren (2000) considers again vertical integration as a protection against hold-up. In an industry with the
same number of firms upstream and downstream, the more vertically integrated firms
there are, the more independent upstream firms are exposed to hold-up. As a consequence, endogenous merger decisions lead to either full integration, or no integration:
This “strategic complementarity” between merger decisions relies on the input market
3
For a detailed discussion of this literature, see Hart (1995).
2
price received by independent suppliers increasing in the number of independent suppliers4 . We consider instead perfect upstream competition, where the input market price
decreases in the number of independent suppliers. In McLaren (2000), firms merge to
protect themselves against hold-up, but do not benefit from creating hold-up for rivals;
by contrast, we emphasize that vertical integration can exacerbate hold-up concerns for
rivals, and reduce in this way their own investment incentives.5
Our paper also relates to the literature on foreclosure,6 and in particular to the seminal papers by Ordover, Saloner and Salop (1990) and Salinger (1998). They argue that
a vertical merger can be profitable as it allows the integrated firm to raise rivals’ costs,
by limiting their access to its own supply and increasing in this way the market power
of alternative suppliers.7 We revisit this literature by focussing on hold-up and ex ante
investment incentives, rather than on ex post product market competition. Furthermore, as stressed by Hart and Tirole (1990), the “raising rivals’ costs” argument relies
on inefficient pricing (namely, linear tariffs), even ex post; otherwise suppliers’ market
power would affect the division of profits, but marginal input prices would still reflect
(marginal) costs, as independent suppliers have no incentives to make their customers
less competitive. By contrast, here hold-up problems alter rivals’ investment incentives
despite efficient ex post contracting. In addition, as pointed out by Hart and Tirole
(1990) and Reiffen (1992), the analysis of OSS also relies on the assumption that the
integrated firm can somehow commit itself to limiting its supplies to downstream rivals –
4
In McLaren (2000) the input quality is stochastic, and the input is allocated through an auction
mechanism; downstream firms therefore pay a positive price if and only if one of the suppliers provides
a low quality input. Yet the risk that one supplier at least provides a low quality increases with the
number of suppliers.
5
As in Bolton and Whinston, because of strategic substitution, vertical integration induces both
higher investment by the integrated firm, and less investment by its rivals. However, in the case of an
upstream monopoly considered by Boston and Whinston, this is achieved by fostering the integrated
firm investment incentives; in the case of upstream competition considered here, this is instead achieved
by impeding rivals’ investment incentives. In practice, both effects can complement each other, further
exacerbating the asymmetry among firms’ investments.
6
See Rey and Tirole (2007) for an overview of this literature.
7
Hart and Tirole (1990), O’Brien and Shaffer (1992) and McAfee and Schwartz (1994) offer a different
rationale, based on the risk of opportunism. Spiegel (2013) shows that vertical integration can also
result into higher input prices for downstream rivals when these have some bargaining power in their
negotiation with an upstream monopolist. Indeed, the independent downstream firm internalizes the
negative externality it exerts on the integrated firm and therefore increases its offer in the bargaining.
On the other hand, the offer of the integrated supplier to the independent firm is still to capture the
whole downstream profit. As a result, the equilibrium price resulting from the bargaining increases.
Therefore the independent firm invests less. In equilibrium the integrated firm invests more because it
internalizes the positive effect of its investment on the upstream profit (solution to hold-up).
3
otherwise, it would have an incentive to keep competing with the alternative suppliers.8
We also contribute to this literature by showing that such commitment is not required
when the quality of support is non verifiable if degrading the quality of support of the
independent rival provides a direct benefit to the integrated firm.
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 shows how vertical integration generates
ex ante incentives to create hold-up problems for independent rivals. It first presents
this insight in a simple model in which, before investment decisions, suppliers can precommit themselves to either appropriating a share of the profits, or dissipating part of
these profits through a degraded support; it then discusses several illustrations. Section
3 shows further that, even in the absence of any pre-commitment, vertical integration
creates ex post hold-up problems when degrading the support provided to one firm not
only harms that firm, but also benefits its rival. Section 4 discusses the robustness of
these insights as well as several extensions. Section 5 concludes.
2
Vertical Integration and Hold-up: An ex ante
Perspective
We consider a successive duopoly framework, with two upstream firms UA and UB and
two downstream firms D1 and D2 . To be active, each Di must both invest and secure
some support, which either upstream firm can supply at no cost. With this support,
investing Ii generates a return ri (Ij ) Ii , which decreases in the rival’s investment Ij ;
without this support, the investment generates no profit.
Throughout this section, we assume that each Di can choose any investment scale
Ii ∈ [0, 1] at cost Ci (Ii ), and maintain the following regularity conditions:
Assumption A. For i 6= j ∈ {1, 2}:
A1. ri (.) is C 1 and strictly decreasing, whereas Ci (.) is C 2 , increasing and strictly
convex;
A2. Ci0 (0) < ri (.) ≤ Ci0 (1);
A3. maxIj ∈[0,1] |ri0 (I)| < minIi ∈[0,1] Ci00 (Ii ).
8
This assumption can be re-interpreted as a commitment over input design. For example, in Choi
and Yi (2000) an integrated supplier may tailor its input to the needs of its downstream unit; in Church
and Gandal (2000) an integrated firm may make its software incompatible with a rival’s hardware.
4
Condition A1 ensures that firms’ investment responses are uniquely defined, and
under condition A2 they are characterized by first-order conditions when firms can
appropriate the full return on their investments; finally, condition A3 guarantees the
existence of a unique, stable investment equilibrium.
Keeping in line with the hold-up literature, contracts are incomplete: For simplicity,
we assume away the possibility of contracting ex ante, before investment decisions are
made. Suppliers can therefore appropriate ex post part of the benefits if they enjoy
market power, a concern however mitigated here by upstream competition.
To show how vertical integration creates incentives to generate hold-up concerns, we
first use a toy model in which suppliers can pre-commit themselves to appropriating
part of their customers’ investment benefits (section 2.1). We then show that the same
insight applies when suppliers can threaten to dissipate, rather than appropriate, their
customers’ profits (section 2.2). We conclude by discussing several illustrations (section
2.3).
2.1
A Toy Model
We allow here suppliers, if they wish so, to commit themselves ex ante, before investment decisions, to a particular sharing rule (exogenously given for the moment being;
we endogeneize it at the end of this section). We view this assumption mainly as a convenient expositional device for discussing ex ante incentives to raise hold-up concerns,
but note that, in practice, a supplier may indeed influence its ex post bargaining power
in various ways, e.g., by posting bonds, exchanging (economic) “hostages,” limiting its
freedom of actions, delegating decision powers to appointed arbitrators, and so forth9 –
see also the discussion of patent trolls in section 2.3.
We thus consider the following game where all decisions are observed by all firms:
- Stage 1: Each supplier can commit itself to leaving (no more than) a share ŝ < 1
of profit to its partners;10 to rule out trivial outcomes, we assume that doing so
involves an arbitrarily small cost ε.
9
For a discussion of ex ante measures that can influence ex post bargaining positions of negotiating
partners, and their role in alleviating hold-up concerns, see, e.g., Aghion et al. (1994).
10
We assume for simplicity that the sharing rule ŝ then applies to all downstream partners.
5
- Stage 2: Downstream firms make their investment decisions.
- Stage 3: Each Uh offers each Di a profit-sharing rule shi ∈ [0, 1] (where shi = ŝ in
case of pre-commitment in stage 1); downstream firms then choose their suppliers.
To analyze the impact of vertical integration on hold-up, we compare the equilibria
of this game in two scenarios. In the first scenario, all firms are independent; in the
second scenario, one (and only one) supplier, say UA , is vertically integrated, say with
D1 .
We first note that, in equilibrium, an independent supplier will never adopt the
sharing rule ŝ in stage 1. To see this, observe that the supplier cannot make a profit
from dealing with integrated downstream firms, which can obtain internal support at
cost; and when competing for independent downstream firms, pre-committing itself to
the rule ŝ would not only cost ε but may also prevent the supplier from outbidding its
rival in stage 3.
Hence, if both suppliers are independent, no supplier ever pre-commits itself in stage
1; it follows that in stage 3, Bertrand-like competition leads the suppliers to provide
support at cost. Therefore, in stage 2 each Di expects to obtain the full return from its
investment, and thus seeks to maximize
ri (Ij ) Ii − Ci (Ii ) .
Suppose now that UA is vertically integrated with D1 . If UA adopts the rule ŝ, then in
stage 3 UB wins ex post the competition for the supply of D2 , by offering a slightly better
sharing rule; therefore, in stage 2 D2 ’s objective becomes ŝr2 (I1 ) I2 − C2 (I2 ), whereas
the objective of the integrated firm UA − D1 remains given by r1 (I2 ) I1 − C1 (I1 ). If
instead UA does not adopt the rule ŝ, then Bertrand competition enables again D2 to
be supplied at cost, and thus each Di chooses Ii so as to maximize ri (Ij ) Ii − Ci (Ii ).
It follows that committing to the rule ŝ allows the integrated firm UA − D1 to expose
its downstream rival D2 to being held-up by UB . Intuitively, this is a profitable strategy
for the integrated firm, as D1 benefits from discouraging D2 ’s investment. Indeed, we
have:
Proposition 1 Under Assumption A:
6
i) Independent suppliers never commit themselves to the sharing rule ŝ; absent vertical integration, upstream competition thus eliminates any risk of hold-up.
ii) By contrast, an integrated supplier commits itself to the sharing rule ŝ, so as to
create hold-up problems for the downstream rival.
Proof. See Appendix A.
So far, the literature has mainly viewed vertical integration as a solution to hold-up
problems. By contrast, here upstream competition disciplines suppliers under vertical
separation, and thus vertical integration has only adverse effects: It has no impact on
the integrated subsidiary, but generates hold-up problems for the independent rival.
To be sure, if upstream competition were more limited, then hold-up concerns could
arise as well under vertical separation; vertical integration would then alleviate these
concerns for the integrated subsidiary,11 but it would still contribute to exacerbate them
for downstream rivals. Consider for instance the case of a monopolistic supplier, having
all the bargaining position in ex post bilateral negotiations. If it did not commit to
the sharing rule ŝ, then ex post it would appropriate all investment benefits, thereby
discouraging downstream firms from undertaking any investment. In the absence of
vertical integration, the supplier will therefore choose to commit itself to the sharing
rule ŝ, in order to limit hold-up concerns and encourage investment, the benefits of
which it can then partly appropriate. By contrast, if vertically integrated the supplier
may choose not to commit to ŝ, so as to discourage the downstream rival’s investment
– it will do so when the benefits to its downstream subsidiary more than offset the loss
of profit from not supplying the rival.
For simplicity, we have considered here the case where a supplier could only precommit itself to a given rule ŝ; however, the insights apply as well when suppliers can
opt in stage 1 (at an arbitrarily small cost) for any sharing rule ŝ ∈ [0, 1]. Again, under
vertical separation no supplier chooses to pre-commit itself, and at stage 3 upstream
competition enables downstream firms to obtain the full returns on their investments.
By contrast, an integrated UA benefits from pre-committing itself to a rule ŝ < 1, so
as to expose D2 to being held-up by UB . The integrated firm would actually wish to
discourage D2 ’s investment as much as possible, but cannot insist in too low a share, as
11
Bolton and Whinston (1993) stress that this may however result in excessive investment incentives,
compared with what is socially desirable.
7
UB would then have an incentive to pre-commit itself as well, in order to limit hold-up
concerns. We show in Appendix B that, in equilibrium, UA commits itself in stage 1 to
ŝA2 = s∗ , where s∗ is the sharing rule that maximizes suppliers’ profit; that is,
s∗ = arg max(1 − s)r2 (I1 (s))I2 (s),
s
where (I1 (s), I2 (s)) are the continuation equilibrium investments when D2 expects to
keep a share s of the profit it generates. UB then wins the competition for D2 in
stage 3 by matching UA ’s offer. Obviously, s∗ < 1 (as suppliers would obtain zero
profit otherwise), and thus vertical integration still creates hold-up problems for the
independent rival.
2.2
Hold-up through profit dissipation
The above toy model supposes that suppliers can pre-commit themselves to capturing
a share of their customers’ profits. We now relax this assumption and show that the
above insights carry over when suppliers can instead threaten to dissipate part of the
investment benefits. In practice, suppliers could achieve this in various ways, e.g.,
by limiting access to some input, granting low-priority access to premium resources,12
exploiting commercially sensitive information,13 and so forth. We will simply assume
here that suppliers can adjust the quality s ∈ [0, 1] of their support; without loss of
generality, we will also assume that they offer their support in exchange for a (lumpsum) tariff T .
To parallel the previous toy model, we make the following assumptions:
• Profit dissipation: When Di obtains support of quality si , its return on investment is
si r(Ij )Ii .
(1)
Degrading the support (si < 1) is thus akin to sabotage: It reduces Di ’s profit but has
no impact on the rival’s profit.14
12
See Bolton and Whinston (1993) for a study of the impact of vertical integration on access to a
scarce input in the case of an upstream monopoly.
13
Asker and Ljungqvist (2010) show for instance that this is concern in the relationship between
investment banks and competing customers.
14
Such sabotage has been a concern in markets such as the telecom industry, where regulating access
8
• Hold-up incentives: Negotiations take place ex post, once investments have been made;
however, if they wish so, suppliers can limit ex ante the quality of the support they offer
to ŝ < 1.15 Thus, as before ex post negotiations introduce a risk of hold-up, which
suppliers can now try and exacerbate by degrading the quality of their support.
The precise timing is as follows, where all decisions are again observed by all firms:
- Stage 1: Each supplier can commit itself, at an arbitrarily small cost ε, to offering
a degraded support ŝ to independent downstream firms.
- Stage 2: Downstream firms make their investment decisions.
- Stage 3: Each Uh offers each Di a contract (shi , Thi ) (where shi = ŝ if Uh has
committed itself in stage 1, and is not integrated with Di );16 each downstream
firm then chooses its supplier.17
The following Proposition characterizes the impact of vertical integration on the
equilibria of this game:
Proposition 2 Previous insights carry over; under Assumption A:
i) Independent suppliers never commit themselves to offering a degraded support.
ii) By contrast, an integrated supplier commits itself to offering a degraded support,
so as to create hold-up problems for the downstream rival.
Proof. See Appendix C.
prices may prompt a dominant firm to degrade rivals’ non-price access conditions; see, e.g., Weisman
(1995), Economides (1998), and Beard et al. (2001).
15
For simplicity, we assume that the integrated firm always provides good support to its own subsidiary. Degrading this support would have a direct impact on its profit and discourage its investment.
The assumption is thus innocuous when investments are strategic substitutes, as degrading the support
provided to its subsidiary would then also foster the rival’s investment. When instead investments are
strategic complements, degrading the support provided to its subsidiary could be desirable only if the
indirect impact on the rival’s investment was large enough to offset the direct negative effects.
16
We do not allow here contracting on exit (e.g., an integrated supplier cannot offer a “reverse payment” to keep a downstream competitor out of the market). Such reverse payments
(or “pay-for-delay” contracts, for generic drugs) are likely to be deemed illegal, as exemplified by the recent US Supreme Court decision FTC v. Actavis, 570 U.S. (2013), available at:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf /12 − 416m 5n0.pdf . In the same vein, we rule out exclusive dealing contracts, which, as shown by Chen and Riordan (2007), could be used to achieve the
same outcome.
17
Whether contracts are publicly observed or not is of no consequence in this framework, as tariffs
do not affect variable profits.
9
The analysis thus confirms the previous insights. Absent vertical integration, upstream competition leads suppliers to provide the best support at cost; downstream
firms therefore obtain the full return on their investments. By contrast, vertical integration between, say, UA and D1 creates hold-up concerns for the independent rival D2 :
By committing itself to offering a degraded support, UA exposes D2 to being held-up by
UB ; in this way, UA discourages D2 ’s investment, to the benefit of the subsidiary D1 .
2.3
Illustrations
The insights from our toy model may shed some light on the role of Patent Assertion
Entities (PAEs). In technology industries such as ICT markets, in recent years some
vertically integrated firms have taken steps to delegate the monetization of (parts of)
their patent portfolios to such entities, often referred to as “patent trolls.” This can be
interpreted as a way to committing to insisting on higher royalty rates,18 and indeed
these entities have been accused of raising royalty costs for technology users19 – the
downstream subsidiary can however retain the use of the patented technology, e.g.,
through a royalty-free licensing or non-asserting agreement.
Interestingly, and in line with the insights from our toy model, following its acquisition of Nokia’s handset business, Microsoft entered in an agreement with such a PAE
(Mosaid, now Conversant) for the management of a large portfolio of patents reading
on devices; this prompted claims of patent trolling by rivals such as Google (who feared
that this could adversely affect rival device makers, who – in contrast to Microsoft Nokia – could contribute to the diffusion of the Android platform), and Huawey (which
triggered the Chinese merger agency, MOFCOM, to impose behavioral remedies for
clearing the merger).20
To illustrate how a supplier may instead dissipate profit, consider the following
standard model of patent race:
18
According to Wikipedia, a patent troll “enforces patent rights against accused infringers
in an attempt to collect licensing fees, but does not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question, thus engaging in economic rent-seeking.” See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent troll.
19
Distributing a portfolio of complementary patents among several PAEs would moreover create
double marginalization problems; such “royalty stacking” strategy would further enable integrated
firms to commit themselves to higher licensing rates.
20
These remedies include licensing patents under “fair, reasonable and non-discrimininatory”
(“FRAND”) terms, and not seeking injunctions or grant-back provisions; see Freshfields (2014).
10
• The two downstream competitors can innovate with probability I at cost C (I) =
cI 2 /2.
• If only one firm innovates, it obtains a competitive edge generating a profit ∆;
otherwise, neck and neck competition dissipates all profit.
Assume further that obtaining this competitive edge requires close cooperation with a
support provider, which involves the exchange of key information about the innovation.
In this context, the “quality” of the support can then be interpreted as the extent
to which this information is “protected” from leakage leading to imitation: With a
protection level ŝ ∈ [0, 1] , the innovation is imitated with probability 1 − ŝ, which
eliminates the competitive edge. Di ’s expected return is thus given by:
si r (Ij ) Ii = si Ii (1 − Ij ) ∆,
and satisfies our regularity conditions as long as c > ∆.
As the return on Di ’s investment decreases in the competitor’s investment Ij , Proposition 1 shows that an integrated supplier benefits from building a reputation to “take
advantage” of independent customers’ sensitive information, so as to expose its rival to
hold-up and discourage it from investing. More precisely:
• Under separation, both firms invest:
IV S =
1
,
η+1
where η ≡ c/∆ > 1.
• When instead UA is vertically integrated with D1 , then it commits itself to offering D2 a degraded support ŝ, so as to expose D2 to being held up by UB ; this
discourages D2 ’s investment, which reduces to
I−V I = s
η−1
< IV S,
2
η −s
and in reaction (investment being strategic substitutes) D1 increases its own in-
11
vestment to
I+V I =
η−s
> IV S.
η2 − s
In case of full degradation (i.e., ŝ = 0, implying that the innovation would be imitated
for sure), there is “complete foreclosure:” D2 leaves the market (I2 = 0), which D1 thus
monopolizes (with I1 = 1/η).
Such concern was at the heart of the discussions surrounding the 2008 merger between TomTom, the leading manufacturer of portable navigation devices (or “PNDs”),
and Tele Atlas, one of the two main providers of digital map databases for navigation
in Europe and North America. In its decision,21 the European Commission stressed
the importance of information exchanges: “Tele Atlas’s customers have to share information on their future competitive actions with their map supplier. [...] In a number
of examples provided [...] by third parties, companies voluntarily passed information
about their estimated future sales, product roadmaps and new features included in the
latest version of their devices. They did this for four main reasons, firstly, to negotiate better prices, secondly, to incorporate existing features in new products, thirdly to
encourage the map suppliers to develop new features, and finally, in order to ensure
technical interoperability of new features with the core map and the software.”22 The
Commission also noted that third parties expressed the concern that “certain categories
of information [...] could, after the merger, be shared with TomTom”, which “would
allow the merged firm to preempt any of their actions aimed at winning more customers
(through better prices, innovative features, new business concepts, increased coverage of
map databases). This would in turn reduce the incentive of TomTom’s competitors to
cooperate with Tele Atlas on pricing policy, innovation and new business concepts, all of
which would require exchange of information. This would strengthen the market power
of NAVTEQ, the only alternative map supplier, with regards to these PND operators
and could lead to increased prices or less innovation”.
23
The sale in 2003 of the Israeli supermarket chain Blue Square provides another
21
Case No COMP/M.4854 - TOMTOM/TELE ATLAS, 14/05/2008.
Commission decision at § 256. For a discussion of strategic information disclosure in bargaining
situations, see Crocker (1983).
23
Commission decision at § 253. Interestingly, shortly after the first merger announcement Nokia
(then the leading manufacturer of smartphones, which were starting to offer GPS features) acquired
NAVTEQ, raising similar concerns (see COMP/M.4942 - NOKIA/NAVTEQ, 02/07/2008).
22
12
illustration. Two downstream firms, the Alon-Dor group and Paz, were competing for
the acquisition of the Blue Square supermarket chain. Leumi, one of the two main
banks, was holding a 20% share of Paz and was therefore partly vertically integrated
with one of the buyers. In a conference, Alon-Dor’s CEO complained that information
concerns prevented his company from obtaining financing from Leumi, leaving it in
the hands of the other main bank. In particular, the Alon-Dor group was fearing that
information about its offer for the supermarket chain would be passed on to its rival,
thereby reducing the probability of obtaining the deal.24
3
Vertical Integration and Hold-up: An ex post Perspective
We now show that, even in the absence of any pre-commitment, vertical integration
can raise hold-up concerns when the quality of the support is not verifiable: Vertical
integration alone may then suffice to alter a supplier’s ex post incentive to degrade the
support provided to a downstream rival, thus exposing the rival to being held-up by
the other supplier; we show in section 3.1 that this is indeed the case when degrading
the support provided to one firm directly benefits the rival firm. Section 3.2 discusses
several illustrations.
3.1
Unverifiable quality
We now exclude any pre-commitment possibility, and suppose instead that suppliers
choose ex post whether to provide a degraded quality, which is moreover unverifiable
– hence, the quality of the support cannot be contracted upon. We also extend the
previous framework by allowing the support provided to one firm to affect the rival’s
profit as well; to keep the analysis tractable, we restrict attention to binary investment
and support decisions: Ii = 0 (no investment) or Ii = 1 (investment, at cost c = C (1)),
and si ∈ {s, s}, where s < s. Formally, Di ’s return from investment is now given by:
ri (Ij ; si , sj ) ≥ 0,
24
See http://www.presidentconf.org.il/en/indexNew.asp; we thank Yossi Spiegel for bringing this
example to our attention.
13
which increases in si but decreases in both Ij and sj ; more precisely:
ri (1; si , sj ) > ri (0; si , sj ) and ri (1; si , s) > ri (1; si , s) .
We thus consider the following game:
- Stage 1: Each Di chooses Ii ∈ {0, 1}; these decisions are observed by all parties.
- Stage 2: Each Uh sets the tariff Thi at which it is willing to support Di .
- Stage 3: Each Di selects a supplier, who then chooses the quality of its support,
shi ∈ {s, s}. To break indifference, we assume that a supplier incurs an arbitrarily
small cost ε when providing a degraded support s.25
In equilibrium, an independent supplier will always provide high-quality support:
Degrading the quality brings no direct benefit, and only exposes the supplier to pay
the cost ε. Hence, when both suppliers are independent, upstream competition leads
suppliers to provide high-quality support at cost. For the sake of exposition, we will
assume that investing is then a dominant strategy: For i = 1, 2,
c < ri (1; s, s) (< ri (0; s, s)) .
Obviously, an integrated supplier does not have any incentive to degrade the quality
of the support provided to its own subsidiary. By contrast, it does have an incentive to
degrade the quality supplied to the independent rival, so as to increase the profit of its
downstream subsidiary. The integrated firm would actually be willing to offer a subsidy
to convince the downstream rival to accept this degraded quality: If for instance UA is
vertically integrated with D1 , and D2 invested in stage 1, then in stage 2 UA would be
willing to offer D2 a subsidy of up to −B, where
B ≡ r1 (1; s, s) − r1 (1; s, s) (> 0)
denotes D1 ’s benefit from degrading the quality supplied to D2 . Hence, UA ’s best
offer gives D2 a net profit of r2 (1; s, s) + B, whereas UB ’s best offer (namely, offering
25
As shown below, this cost can be seen as a proxy for the penalties to which the supplier may be
exposed, with small probability, when supplying poor support.
14
high-quality at cost) yields r2 (1; s, s). As a result, which supplier wins the competition
depends on whether degrading the support increases or reduces total industry profit:
When ∆Π < 0, where
∆Π ≡ r1 (1; s, s) + r2 (1; s, s) − r1 (1; s, s) − r2 (1; s, s),
(2)
then degrading the quality increases total industry profit, in which case the integrated
firm will successfully “bribe” D2 into accepting a degraded quality. That is, UA offers a
degraded support, but wins the competition for D2 by offering a subsidy to match UB ’s
best offer.26 As a result, ex post industry profits are increased, and D2 obtains the same
profit as with full support supplied at cost – it follows that D2 ’s investment incentives
are not distorted in that case, as D2 obtains the full return on its investment.
By contrast, when ∆Π > 0, degrading the quality supplied to D2 hurts D2 more than
it benefits D1 , and thus the integrated firm is not willing to offer a subsidy large enough
to offset the degradation of its support. As a result, UB not only wins the competition,
but is able to hold D2 up and charge a supra-competitive tariff for its support. Formally,
we have:
Proposition 3 Independent suppliers do not have an incentive to degrade ex post the
quality of the support they provide; by contrast, if both firms invest then:
i) An integrated supplier does have an incentive to degrade the quality supplied to the
independent rival, in order to increase the profit of its downstream subsidiary.
ii) If degrading the quality of the support provided to one firm reduces total industry
profit, then vertical integration creates hold-up problems for the downstream rival.
Proof. See Appendix D.
Hence, when degrading the quality of the support provided to one firm reduces total
industry profit (i.e., ∆Π > 0), vertical integration does not affect ex post industry
profit (as D2 still obtains good-quality support from D2 ); it however generates hold-up
concerns, which distort D2 ’s investment incentives:
26
This corresponds to the case analyzed by Chen and Riordan (2007), where a vertically integrated
firm convinces a downstream rival to enter in an exclusive deal with a high input price, making the
rival a less effective competitor.
15
Corollary 4 We have:
i) If c < ri (1; s, s) for i = 1, 2, then both firms invest in case of vertical separation,
and an integrated firm invests as well.
ii) If in addition c > rj (1; s, s) − ∆Π, where ∆Π is given by (2), then vertical
integration between Uh and Di deters Dj from investing.
Proof. See Appendix E.
So far we have assumed that the quality was unverifiable, and thus could not be
contracted upon; our results still apply, however, when quality is “partially contractible”
in the sense that it can be verified ex post with some probability (e.g., through an audit,
litigation in court, and so forth). To protect its customers, the supplier can then offer
to compensate them if it is established that the support provided was indeed of poor
quality. The effectiveness of such compensation schemes however depends not only on
the accuracy of ex post investigations, but also on the legal environment, which often
limits the compensation that can be offered. For instance, the “expected damage rule”
(see, e.g., Che and Chung 1999, or Shavell 1984) limits the compensation to the actual
profit loss resulting from the degraded service. Even stricter, the “reliance damages
rule” enables only compensations for reliance expenditures, i.e., the expenses that the
customer incurred in anticipation of contract performance. Because of these limitations,
vertical integration may affect the extent to which a supplier can credibly guarantee the
quality of its support.
To see this, suppose that poor quality is detected with probability p, in which case
the supplier can offer a compensation that cannot exceed a cap (dictated by the legal
environment) Φ. Hence in stage 2, each Di offers a contract of the form (Thi , φhi ), where
φhi ≤ Φ; and in stage 3, if Uh supplies a degraded quality, then it is found guilty with
probability p, in which case it pays Di the compensation φhi .
In equilibrium, an independent supplier will offer such a compensation scheme (e.g.,
φhi = Φ); in effect, this enables the supplier to commit itself to delivering good quality,
as degrading the quality would not bring any profit and would cost ε = pΦ. Likewise,
an integrated supplier does not have any incentive to degrade the quality of the support
provided to its own subsidiary. By contrast, it will degrade the quality of the service
offered to the independent rival, even if it offers a compensation, whenever the direct
16
benefit for its subsidiary exceeds the maximal expected compensation it will have to
pay, that is, whenever:27
pΦ < r1 (1; s, s) − r1 (1; s, s).
Hence, under this condition, an integrated UA will be unable to credibly commit itself
to delivering good quality, whereas an independent UB could do so. The above analysis
then readily applies – in particular, UA ’s best offer still consists of (providing poor
quality and) offering a subsidy of −B (including any expected compensation), whereas
UB ’s best offer still consists of supplying good quality (by offering a compensation Φ if
a default were detected) at cost; hence, as before, vertical integration creates hold-up
problems for the downstream rival whenever degrading the quality of its support reduces
total industry profit.
3.2
Illustration
For illustrative purposes, we will suppose here that Di ’ profits is determined by the
“effective capacities” of the two firms, K1 and K2 :
R (Kj ) Ki ,
where these effective capacities depend on the quality of the support received by the
firms as well as on their investments.28
Suppose first that degrading the support si provided to Di reduces its own capacity,
from Ki = 1 to Ki = s. Firm i’s return on investment is then of the form
ri (Ij ; si , sj ) = R(sj Ij )si .
The conditions outlined in Proposition 3 thus boil down to
R (s) − (1 − s) R(s) < c < R(s) (< R(0)), 29
27
If the maximum amount of compensation Φ follows the expected damage rule, the condition simply
1 (1;s,s)
boils down to p < ππ12 (1;s,s)−π
(1;s,s)−π2 (1;s,s) .
28
This capacity game appears more relevant for the cases discussed below, in which returns on
investments seem less risky than for R&D projects or takeover bids; the previous patent race model
could however be used as well here.
29
If for instance R (K) = a − bK, these conditions define an admissible range for c whenever a/b < 2,
17
and ensure here that an integrated supplier benefits from building a reputation to degrade the support offered to independent rivals, so as to limit their capacity to compete
in the downstream market.
A case in point is provided by the SNCF, the French incumbent rail company, which
in 2012 was fined by the national competition authority for having prevented, through
various means, rival freight operators from accessing facilities that were essential to
their business (freight yards, train paths, . . . ). For instance, the SNCF strategically
overbooked train paths, and did not release those that were not used (or did so very
late). And in some cases, competing firms were constrained to resort to freight road
transportation, which increased their cost and therefore limited their business.30 Since
then, the French rail regulator (Araf) requires a firm to pay a 20% deposit to the
regulator when booking a rail path: If the rail path is unused and released too late,
i.e., less than two months in advance, the deposit is lost; if the firm cancels its booking
on time, the deposit is refunded. The regulator in this example clearly introduced
fines so as to enhance the legal environment and limit in this way the anti-competitive
over-booking strategy of the SNCF freight operator.31
Suppose now that degrading the support sj provided to Dj generates instead spillovers
ej = 1 − sj for its rival Di , who benefits from a larger capacity Ki = 1 + ej Ij . For the
sake of exposition, we assume now that s = 1. If Di invests, its return is now given by
(using Kj = 0 if Ij = 0):
ri (Ij ; ei , ej ) = R ((1 + ei Ii )Ij ) (1 + ej Ij ) .
The conditions of Proposition 3 here boil down to (where ê = 1 − s):
R(1 + ê) + êR(1) < c < R(1)(< R(0)).32
Under these conditions, an integrated supplier has an incentive to build a reputation to
and R (.) remains positive in the relevant domain as long as a/b > s.
30
See Decision n◦ 12-D-25 of the French competition authority, available at http :
//www.autoritedelaconcurrence.f r/pdf /avis/12d25.pdf .
31
http://www.asso-bb.net/assets/sites/www.regulation-ferroviaire.fr/files/ecr-n-2013-016-definitivepubliquer95fb.pdf
32
For R (K) = a − bK, these conditions define again an admissible range for c when a/b < 2, and
R (.) now remains positive in the relevant domain as long as a/b > 1 + ê.
18
take advantage of its customers, so as to generate spillovers for its own subsidiary; this
again enables UB to hold D2 up, and discourages in this way D2 ’s investment.
Such concerns are particularly relevant in case of free-riding and business stealing.
For instance, if a firm plans to launch an advertising campaign for a new product, then
information about the characteristics of the product and/or the date of the campaign
may enable a rival to free-ride on the promotional activities and steer consumers towards
its own products. In the US, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) put conditions in
2010 on a vertical merger between PepsiCo and its two largest bottlers and distributors,
who were also servicing its rival Dr Pepper Snapple (henceforth “DPSG”). The FTC
expressed the concern that “PepsiCo will have access to DPSG’s commercially sensitive
confidential marketing and brand plans. Without adequate safeguards, PepsiCo could
misuse that information, leading to anti-competitive conduct that would make DPSG
a less effective competitor [...]”. Likewise, in a case involving the acquisition by The
Coca-Cola Company (“TCCC”) of its main US bottler, the FTC was concerned that
“TCCC’s access to this information could enable it to use the information in ways that
could impair DPSG’s ability to compete and ultimately injure competition by weakening
a competitor.” The FTC eventually ordered PepsiCo and TCCC to set-up a firewall in
order to regulate the use of this commercially sensitive information.33
4
Robustness and extensions
The previous section shows that vertical integration can exacerbate hold-up problems
for the independent downstream rival, by increasing the market power of the alternative
supplier. This insight is robust in many respects. First, the analysis readily extends to
downstream oligopolies: Vertical integration enhances the market power of the alternative supplier over all independent downstream rivals, thus discouraging their investments
to the benefit of the integrated firm. Second, the same logic applies when downstream
firms have more bargaining power in their bilateral procurement negotiations, as long
as suppliers obtain a positive share of the specific gains generated by the relationship.
We extend below our insights to the case of customer foreclosure and imperfect
33
For the above quotations, and the analysis of the FTC in these two cases, see “In the Matter of
PepsiCo Inc.,” FTC-file 091-0133 of 02/26/2010, and “In the Matter of The Coca-Cola Company,”
FTC-file 101-0107 of 09/27/2010.
19
upstream competition.
4.1
Customer foreclosure
The analysis also applies (“upside-down”) when the upstream firms are the ones that are
subject to hold-up. For example, the development of private labels by large retail chains
(a particular form of vertical integration) may expose national brand manufacturers
to exacerbated hold-up, thereby discouraging their investments. Indeed, in 1996 the
EC blocked the merger between two Finnish retail groups, Kesko and Tuko, which
would have created a dominant position on the retail market. One concern mentioned
by the EC was that “[private label development] enables retailers, who are inevitably
privy to commercially sensitive details regarding the branded goods producers’ product
launches and promotional strategies, to act as competitors as well as key customers
of the producers. This privileged position increases the leverage enjoyed by retailers
over branded goods producers.”34 In the same vein, a recent market study reports that
new national brand products are imitated more quickly by private labels than by other
national brands.35
Consider for instance the following framework, that mirrors the previous one. Two
manufacturers MA and MB invest to develop a new product, to be sold on an exclusive
basis through one of two retailers (that is, there is no intra-brand competition). As in
section 3.1, the resulting profit depends on the quality of the distribution: That is, Mh ’s
product generates a profit rh (Ik , sh , sk )Ih (for h 6= k ∈ {A, B}), which increases in the
quality of its distribution, sh , and decreases in both the rival’s investment, Ik , and in
the quality of its own distribution, sk .36 The game becomes:
- Stage 1: Each Mh chooses Ih ∈ {0, 1}; these decisions are observed by all parties.
- Stage 2: Each Ri sets the tariff Thi at which it is willing to distribute Mh ’s product.
- Stage 3: Each Mh selects a retailer, who then chooses the quality of its distribution
services, shi ∈ {s, s} (as before, degrading the quality involves an arbitrarily small
34
See §152 of the “Commission Decision of 20/11/1996 declaring a concentration to be incompatible
with the common market,” Case No IV/M.784 - Kesko/Tuko.
35
See DIW (2010); similar observations apply for packaging imitation.
36
For the sake of exposition, we assume here that the profit generated by each product is the same,
whether the two products are sold by different retailers, or by the same retailer.
20
cost ε).
The same reasoning as in section 3.1 shows that independent retailers have no incentive to degrade ex post the quality of their distribution services, as this would only
put them at a disadvantage when competing for the distribution of the two brands.
It follows that, under separation, Bertrand competition leads the two retailers to offer
each Mh the full profit generated by its product: Th1 = Th2 = rh (Ik , s, s) Ih . Likewise,
an integrated retailer will provide good services for the distribution of its own brand.
By contrast, it does have an incentive to degrade the distribution of the rival brand, in
order to enhance the profit from its own brand. And again this creates hold-up problems
for the rival manufacturer whenever doing so reduces total industry profit, that is, if
∆Π = rA (1; s, s) + rB (1; s, s) − rA (1; s, s) − rA (1; s, s).
If for instance both manufacturers invested, then an integrated R1 will at most offer
an independent MB a profit TB1 = rB (1; s, s) + B, where B = rA (1; s, s) − rA (1; s, s),
thereby allowing R2 to win the competition by offering only part of the profit generated
(namely, TB2 = TB1 , which is lower than rB (1; s, s) when ∆Π > 0).
4.2
Imperfect upstream competition and voluntary divestitures
The reasoning developed above carries over to the case where suppliers are symmetrically differentiated, so that each downstream firm has a favored supplier: it obtains an
additional surplus γ when dealing with its favorite supplier, say. Under standard (asymmetric) Bertrand competition, absent vertical integration the favorite supplier wins the
competition for the downstream firm but keeps the additional surplus γ; the situation
for D2 is therefore the same as if none of the suppliers were able to provide this additional surplus. And as before, an integrated UA − D1 may degrade its support in order
to expose D2 to being held-up by UB . This hold-up is however more severe when UB is
also D2 ’s favorite supplier. As a result, vertical integration results into greater hold-up
and foreclosure for independent rivals when it does not involve their favorite supplier.
When instead one of the suppliers benefits from a substantial comparative advantage over its rival, and thus enjoys market power in the upstream segment, it may no
21
longer be profitable for the integrated firm to create hold-up concerns: While the downstream subsidiary would still benefit from distorting its rival’s investment incentives,
the upstream division would lose some profitable business.37 The resulting balance of
the conflicting impacts on upstream and downstream profits may in that case lead an
integrated firm to separate.
This concern has for instance been mentioned in 1999 by General Motors (GM)
as a motivation for spinning-off its auto parts subsidiary Delphi, so as to enable it
to contract with other automakers, which were reluctant to rely on Delphi as long
as it was a unit of GM.38 A similar concern may underlie AT&T’s 1995 voluntary
divestiture of its manufacturing arm, AT&T Technology (now Lucent), as the coming
Telecommunication Act (1996) was due to allow the Regional Bell Operating Companies
(RBOCs) to compete with AT&T on the long distance market.39
In the same spirit, Loertscher and Riordan (2013) study a monopolist’s incentives
to divest its upstream division when alternative suppliers can invest in uncertain cost
reductions. Remaining integrated enables the firm to source internally at cost, but this
reduces alternative suppliers’ profits and thus discourages their investments. As a result,
it is optimal for the integrated firm to divest its upstream division when there is a large
dispersion of realized costs.
4.3
Partial vertical integration
We focus here on the case of forward integration where UA acquires a small stake α in
D1 . We solve again the game developed in section 3.1 and show that the hold-up effect
can be exacerbated in the case of partial forward integration compared to the previous
analysis with full integration. Still, in the last stage, the independent supplier has no
incentive to degrade the quality of its support and the integrated firm has no incentive to
offer a low quality support to its subsidiary. In contrast, the UA which obtains a share α
of D1 ’s profit can expect a small benefit Bα = α(r1 (1; s, s) − r1 (1; s, s)) when degrading
the support of D2 , which increases in α. Therefore if Bα > , UA degrades D2 ’s quality of
37
For a formal analysis, see Allain, Chambolle and Rey (2011), Appendix E.
http://money.cnn.com/1999/05/31/companies/gm/
39
See e..g. Hausman and Kohlberg (1989) at p. 214: “The BOCs will not want to be in a position
of technological dependence on a competitor, nor will they want to discuss further service plans with
the manufacturing affiliate of a competitor”.
38
22
support. Then, in the negotiation stage, UA is now ready to offer a subsidy TA2 = −Bα in
order to compensate D2 for the low quality of support that will be provided. In turn, the
best offer of UB is to supply D2 at cost. Therefore, when r2 (1; s, s) > r2 (1; s, s) + Bα , UB
wins the competition with a tariff TB2 = ∆Π0 = r2 (1; s, s) − r2 (1; s, s) − Bα whenever
∆Π0 > 0. BecauseBα < B, we have ∆Π0 > ∆Π, and the new condition such that
UB wins, ∆Π0 > 0, is less binding than the previous one ∆Π > 0 obtained with full
integration. Moreover, the tariff that UB can impose to D2 , and therefore the amount
of hold-up is also higher. The expected profit of D2 is r2 (1; s, s) − ∆Π0 which strictly
increases in α. D2 is discouraged from investing when c > r2 (1; s, s) − ∆Π0 . In reaction,
D1 still invest if (1 − α)r1 (1; s, s) > c. It is immediate that when α is small enough, D1
will keep investing while D2 will be discouraged for c ∈ [r2 (1; s, s)−∆Π0 , (1−α)r1 (1; s, s)].
The latter interval is strictly wider than the interval c ∈ [r2 (1; s, s)−∆Π, r1 (1; s, s)] such
that only the integrated firm invests in the full integration case, when α is small enough.
5
Conclusion
In contrast with the established literature, which mainly views vertical integration as a
solution to the hold-up problem, our analysis emphasizes that vertical integration may
create hold-up problems for rivals. We first highlight this using a toy model in which
competing suppliers can choose to pre-commit themselves to appropriating part of the
profits. Independent suppliers never use this option; as a result, under vertical separation
upstream competition eliminates hold-up concerns. By contrast, an integrated supplier
relies on this option to create hold-up concerns for downstream rivals, and discourage
in this way their investments. Similar insights apply when suppliers can threaten to
dissipate (rather than appropriate) their customers’ profits.
Our analysis also revisits the literature on vertical foreclosure, which has highlighted
the impact of vertical integration on product market competition through “raising rivals’
costs” effects; we emphasize instead the adverse impact of vertical integration on rivals’
innovation and investment incentives, through exacerbated hold-up concerns. We further show that, in contrast with the literature on raising rivals’ cost, vertical foreclosure
can arise even in the absence of any pre-commitment to denying or degrading access.
Vertical integration alone triggers incentives to degrade them, even ex post, whenever
23
doing so brings direct benefits to the downstream subsidiary. As long as degrading access
reduces total industry profits, the threat of such degradation exposes independent rivals
to being held-up (by the other suppliers), thereby generating innovation foreclosure.
Finally, we show that these insights apply to customer foreclosure as well as to input
foreclosure, and discuss several illustrations.
A direct implication of this analysis is that the relative importance of the profits that
are achievable upstream and downstream affects firms’ incentives to integrate or divest
vertically related activities. For instance, an integrated firm may trade-off the benefit
of exposing downstream rivals to hold-up (which depends among other things on how
competitive their alternative suppliers are) against the foregone profit from supplying
these potential customers.
To be sure, we have emphasized here the “dark side” of vertical integration on rivals’
investment incentives; in practice, the “bright side” emphasized by the existing literature, namely, the elimination of hold-up concerns for the integrated firm, can contribute
to foster investment incentives. Our aim is certainly not to deny this benefit, but rather,
to contribute to the analytical framework that can be used to evaluate the overall impact of vertical integration on investment and innovation, so as to provide guidance for
policy makers and in particular for merger control.
References
Aghion, Philippe, Mathias Dewatripont and Patrick Rey (1994), “Renegotiation
Design with Unverifiable Information,” Econometrica, 62(2):257-282.
Allain, Marie-Laure, Claire Chambolle and Patrick Rey (2011), “Vertical Integration,
Innovation and Foreclosure,” IDEI Working Paper, N◦ 673.
Asker, John, and Alexander Ljungqvist (2010), “Competition and the Structure of
Vertical Relationships in Capital Markets,” Journal of Political Economy, 118(3):599647.
Beard, T. Randolph, David L. Kaserman and John W. Mayo (2001), “Vertical Integration and Sabotage,” The Journal of Industrial Economics, 49(3):319-333.
Bolton, Patrick, and Michael Whinston (1991), “The Foreclosure Effects of Vertical
Mergers,” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 147:207-226.
24
Bolton, Patrick, and Michael Whinston (1993), “Incomplete Contracts, Vertical Integration, and Supply Assurance,” Review of Economic Studies, 60:1-21.
Che, Yeon-Koo, and Tai-Yeong Chung (1999) “Contract Damages and Cooperative
Investments,” RAND Journal of Economics, 30(1):84-105.
Chen, Yongmin, and Michael Riordan (2007), “vertical integration, exclusive dealing,
and ex post cartelization,” RAND Journal of economics, 38(1):121-148.
DIW (2010), “Zunehmende Nachfragemacht des Einzelhandels, Eine Studie fur den
Markenverband,” available at http://www.markenverband.de/publikationen/studien/Nachfragemacht.
Economides, Nicholas (1998), “The incentive for non-price discrimination by an input
monopolist,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 16:271-284.
Freshfields (2014), “MOFCOM’s Microsoft/Nokia decision highlights concerns over
patent licensing,” available at http://www.freshfields.com/uploadedFiles/SiteWide/Knowledge/00948
PG ACT MOFCOMs MicrosoftNokia decision highlights concerns over patent FINAL.pdf.
Gilbert, Richard, and David Newbery (1982), “Preemptive Patenting and the Persistence of Monopoly,” American Economic Review, 72(3):514-526.
Grossman, Sanford J., and Oliver Hart (1986), “The Costs and Benefits of Ownership: A Theory of Vertical and Lateral Integration,” Journal of Political Economy,
94(4):691-719.
Grout, Paul (1984), “Investment and wages in the absence of binding contracts: a
Nash bargaining approach,” Econometrica, 52:449-60.
Hart, Oliver, and John Moore (1988), “Incomplete Contracts and Renegotiation,”Econometrica,
56(4):755-85.
Klein, Benjamin, Robert G. Crawford, and Armen A. Alchian (1978) “Vertical Integration, Appropriable Rents and the Competitive Contracting Process,” Journal of Law
and Economics, 21(2):297-326.
Loertscher, Simon and Michael Riordan (2013), “Outsourcing, vertical Integration,
and Cost Reduction,” available at http://www.columbia.edu/˜mhr21/papers/Outsourcing.pdf.
McLaren, John (2000), “Globalization and Vertical Structure,”American Economic
Review, 90(5):1239-1254.
Ordover, Janusz A., Garth Saloner, and Steven C. Salop (1990), “Equilibrium Vertical Foreclosure,” American Economic Review, 80(1):127-142.
Ordover, Janusz A., Garth Saloner, and Steven C. Salop (1992), “Equilibrium Ver25
tical Foreclosure: Reply,” American Economic Review, 82(3):698-703.
Reiffen, David (1992), “Equilibrium Vertical Foreclosure: Comment,” American Economic Review, 82(3):694-697.
Salinger, Michael A. (1988), “Vertical Mergers and Market Foreclosure,” Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 103(2):345-356.
Shavell, Steven, (1984), “A model of the optimal use of liability and safety regulation,” Rand Journal of Economics, 15:271-280.
Spiegel, Yossi (2013), “Backward integration, forward integration, and vertical foreclosure,” Working Paper TAU.
Tirole, Jean (1986), “Procurement and Renegotiation,” Journal of Political Economy, 94(2):235-59.
Weisman, Dennis L. (1995), “Regulation and the Vertically Integrated Firm: The
Case of RBOC Entry into Inter-LATA Long Distance,” Journal of Regulatory Economics, 8:249-266.
Williamson, Oliver (1975), Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications, New York: Free Press.
Williamson, Oliver (1985), The Economic Institutions of Capitalism, New York: Free
Press.
26
Appendix
A
Proof of Proposition 1
To establish Proposition 1, we first characterize the investment equilibria, for given
sharing rules s1 and s2 , before drawing the implications for hold-up incentives.
A.1
Investment equilibria
If Di anticipates keeping a share si of the profit it generates at stage 3 (where si = 1 in
case of integration), then at stage 2 it chooses Ii so as to maximize:
πi (Ii , Ij ; si ) = si ri (Ij ) Ii − Ci (Ii ) .
Assumption A1 ensures that this objective function is continuously differentiable and
strictly concave in Ii . There it thus a unique best response, Iir (Ij ; si ), which from the
boundary conditions A2 is either 0 or characterized by the first order condition (FOC):
Ci0 (Ii ) = si ri (Ij ) .
Assumption A3 further ensures that this best-response has a slope lower than 1 in
absolute value:40
r
∂Ii
|ri0 (Ij )|
∂Ij (Ij ; si ) ≤ si C 00 (Ii ) < 1.
It follows that, for any (s1 , s2 ), there is a unique investment equilibrium, I1∗ (s1 , s2 )
and I2∗ (s2 , s1 ). The first condition in A2 further ensures that Di ’s equilibrium investment
is positive whenever si = 1: Ii∗ (1, sj ) > 0 for any sj .
A.2
Hold-up incentives
In the absence of vertical integration, no supplier pre-commits itself to s, and at stage
3 Bertrand competition yields s1 = s2 = 1. It follows from the above that both firms
invest: IiV S = Ii∗ (1, 1) > 0 for i = 1, 2. Let πiV I denote the resulting profits.
40
The first inequality stems from the fact that the slope is 0 in the range where I r (.; si ) = 0.
27
Suppose now that UA is vertically integrated with D1 , and thus s1 = 1. Letting s
denote D2 ’s sharing rule, the investment equilibrium is therefore of the form I1V I (s) =
I1∗ (1, s) > 0, such that
C10 I1V I = r1 I2V I ,
(3)
whereas D2 invests I2V I (s) = I2∗ (s, 1), which is either 0 (if C20 (0) ≥ sr2 I1V I or such
that:
C20 I2V I = sr2 I1V I .
(4)
Reducing D2 ’s share of profit discourages its investment. Indeed, differentiating (3)
and (4) with respect to I1 , I2 , and s yields
C100 I1V I r2 I1V I
dI2V I
> 0,
= 00 V I 00 V I
ds
C1 (I1 ) C2 (I2 ) − sr20 (I1V I ) r10 (I2V I )
(5)
where the inequality stems from the numerator being positive under A1, and the denominator being positive under A3. It follows that reducing D2 ’s share of profit is profitable
for the integrated firm whenever D1 benefits from discouraging D2 ’s investment: LetVI
ting πA−1
(s) denote the equilibrium profit of the integrated firm, as a function of D2 ’s
sharing rule, we have:
VI
πA−1
(s) = r1 I2V I (s) I1V I (s) − C1 I1V I (s)
= max r1 I2V I (s) I1 − C1 (I1 ) ,
I1 ∈[0,1]
and thus the envelope theorem yields:
VI
dI2V I
dπA−1
= I1 r10 I2V I
< 0,
ds
ds
where the inequality stems from (5) and r10 I2V I < 0. Therefore:
• If UA does not pre-commit itself to s, then at stage 3 Bertrand competition yields
again s2 = 1; the investment equilibrium therefore remains the same as under
VI
separation: I2V I (1) = I2V S > 0 and the integrated firm thus obtains πA−1
(1) =
π1V S .
• If instead UA pre-commits itself to s, then at stage 3 UB wins the competition for
28
D2 by matching UA ’s offer.41 Anticipating this, in the subgame that follows D2
reduces its equilibrium investment: I2V I (s) < I2V S , and the integrated firm thus
VI
obtains a higher profit, πA−1
(s) > π1V S .
It follows that UA chooses to pre-commit itself to s.
B
Endogenous sharing rule at the pre-commitment
stage
We consider here a variant of the toy model in which suppliers can, if they wish so,
pre-commit themselves in stage 1 to any sharing rule s ∈ [0, 1].
We start with the case of vertical separation. We first note that it cannot be the case
that both suppliers choose to pre-commit themselves in stage 1. To see this, suppose
that Uh opts for sh and the rival Uk opts for sk at stage 1:
• If sh < sk , then Uk loses the competition and would be better off not precommitting itself at stage 1, so as to save the cost ε.
• If sh = sk , then at least one supplier does not win the competition for sure, and
would be better not pre-committing itself so as to undercut the other at stage 3.
Therefore, at least one supplier does not pre-commit itself in stage 1. But then,
the other one is better off not pre-committing itself either, so as to save the cost ε
and avoid being undercut for sure at stage 3. It follows that, under separation, no
supplier pre-commits itself in stage 1; Bertrand competition at stage 3 then enables
downstream firms to obtain the full benefits from their investments, and thus each Di
invests IiV S = Ii∗ (1, 1).
Let us now turn to the case where UA is vertically integrated with D1 ; D1 thus
obtains support at cost, and the only relevant competition is for D2 .
If UA does not pre-commit itself in stage 1, then UB cannot hope to make a profit
in stage 3: It at stage 1 it opts for some sB < 1, then at stage 3 UA will undercut
41
Technically, in stage 3 the only continuation equilibrium is indeed that UB offers exactly sB2 = s
and D2 picks UB as supplier.
29
it; and if it does not pre-commit itself (or opts for sB = 1) in stage 1, then in stage
3 Bertrand competition drives profit down to zero. It is therefore best for UB not to
pre-commit itself, so as to save the cost ε. Therefore, any candidate equilibrium in
which UA does not pre-commit itself in stage 1 is such that D2 fully benefits from
Bertrand competition in stage 3, and thus yields the same outcome as under separation;
in particular, I2 = I2V S > 0. But then, UA would profitably deviate by pre-committing
itself to, say, sA = 0, so as to expose D2 to being fully held-up by UB , and discouraging
in this way D2 from investing anything (that is, sA = 0 would induce I2 = 0).
Suppose that UA opts instead for a rule sA at stage 1, and let s∗ denote the sharing
rule that maximizes UB ’s profit: s∗ = arg maxs πB (s), where
πB (s) ≡ (1 − s)r2 (I1∗ (1, s))I2∗ (s, 1).
Note that, by construction, s∗ < 1. As long as sA < s∗ , it is best for UB to pre-commit
to sB = s∗ in stage 1, so as to outbid UA and obtain the profit πB∗ = πB (s∗ ); but then,
UA would be better-off not pre-committing at stage 1 so as to save the cost ε. If instead
UA opts for sA = s∗ at stage 1, then UB ’s best response is to (save the cost ε and)
slightly outbid UA at stage 3; this induces an equilibrium outcome where D2 invests
I2 = I2∗ (s∗ , 1). Finally, suppose that UA opts for a more generous sharing rule sA > s∗
at stage 1, and let
sr (sA ) ≡ arg max πB (s)
s≥sA
denote the sharing rule that maximizes UB ’s profit, among those that are at least as
generous as sA . UB ’s best response can be of two types:
• If sr (sA ) = sA , then UB ’s best response to sA is to save the cost ε and win the
competition by matching UA ’s offer at stage 3; this yields a candidate equilibrium
in which D2 invests I2∗ (sA , 1). But then, UA could profitably deviate by precommitting itself to any s ≤ s∗ , to as to induce UB to offer s∗ at stage 3 and
reduce D2 ’s investment, from I2∗ (sA , 1) to I2∗ (s∗ , 1).
• If instead sr (sA ) > sA , then UB ’s best response to sA is to opt for sB = sr (sA )
at stage 1; this yields a candidate equilibrium in which D2 invests I2∗ (sB , 1). But
then, UA could profitably deviate by not pre-committing itself in stage 1, as this
30
would save the cost ε without affecting D2 ’s investment.
Hence, the only equilibrium is such that UA pre-commits itself to ŝA = s∗ in stage
1, whereas UB waits and slightly outbids UA in stage 3. In this equilibrium, D2 must
share its profit with UB (as s∗ < 1), and thus invests less than under separation: I2V I =
I2∗ (s∗ , 1) < I2V S = I2∗ (1, 1).
C
Proof of Proposition 2
First, it is a dominant strategy for an independent supplier not to commit to offering
a degraded support: doing so would be costly and could only put the supplier at a
competitive disadvantage when competing for customers. It follows that, absent vertical integration, ex post Bertrand-like competition among suppliers enables downstream
firms to obtain the best support (s = 1) at cost (T = 0).
Suppose now that UA is integrated with D1 . If UA commits itself to offering D2 a
degraded support s, then in stage 3 UB holds D2 up: UA ’s best offer to D2 is to offer its
degraded support at price TA2 = 0, and UB wins the competition by offering full support
(sB2 = 1), but at a price matching UA ’s best offer (namely, TB2 = (1−s)r(I1 )I2 ), leaving
D2 with only a share of its profit, equal to
sr(I1 )I2 .
Anticipating this, in stage 2 D2 chooses a lower investment than if UA did not degrade
its support. Whenever it benefits from reducing the investment of its downstream rival
D2 , an integrated UA thus prefers to commit itself to offering a degraded support to D2 ,
so as to put it at the mercy of the other supplier, UB .
D
Proof of Proposition 3
As noted in the text, it is a dominant strategy for an independent supplier to provide
ex post high-quality support. Suppose now that UA is vertically integrated with D1 .
Obviously, D1 still obtains high-quality support at cost (e.g., from UA ). Consider now
the suppliers’ best offers to D2 . UB provides high-quality support, and its best offer is to
31
provide at cost: T̂B2 = 0. By contrast, UA provides poor quality, so as to increase D1 ’s
profit from r1 (1; s, s) to r1 (1; s, s). To win the competition for D2 , UA is thus willing
to offer a subsidy of up to T̂A2 = − [r1 (1; s, s) − r1 (1; s, s)] (< 0). Therefore, UA ’s best
offer gives D2 a net profit of
π̂2A = r2 (1; s, s) − T̂A2 = r2 (1; s, s) + r1 (1; s, s) − r1 (1; s, s) ,
whereas UB ’s best offer gives D2 a profit of
π̂2B = r2 (1; s, s) − T̂B2 = r2 (1; s, s) .
UB wins the competition when π̂2B > π̂2A , which amounts to
0 < π̂2B − π̂2A
= r2 (1; s, s) − [r2 (1; s, s) + r1 (1; s, s) − r1 (1; s, s)]
= ∆Π.
That is, UB wins the competition whenever degrading the quality of D2 ’s support reduces total industry profit (∆Π > 0), and in that case UB is moreover able to charge
a positive tariff: In equilibrium, UB charges a tariff TB2 that leaves D1 indifferent between accepting the offer or opting for UA ’s best offer; that is, this tariff is such that
r2 (I2 ; s, s) − TB2 = π̂2A , or:
TB2 = r2 (I2 ; s, s) − π̂2A = π̂2B − π̂2A = ∆Π > 0.
E
Proof of Proposition 4
In the case of vertical separation, in stage 3 Bertrand-like competition enables downstream firms to obtain high-quality support at cost. Each Di thus obtains a profit equal
to [ri (Ij ; s, s) − c] Ii ; hence, if c < ri (1; s, s) (< ri (0; s, s)), then is a dominant strategy
to invest: I1 = I2 = 1. Suppose now that UA is vertically integrated with D1 . As D1 still
obtains again high-quality support at cost, it keeps investing: I1 = 1. By contrast, if in
addition c > r2 (1; s, s)−∆Π (which implies ∆Π > 0), then D2 is better off not investing,
32
as it would only obtain π̂2B − TB2 = r2 (1; s, s) − ∆Π < c. A similar reasoning applies if
D2 is vertically integrated, replacing the last condition with c > r1 (1; s, s) − ∆Π.
33