Bertrand competition and Cournot outcomes: a correction

We received independent comments from Dan Kovenock and Luis Ubeda regarding proofs of Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 in Boccard and Wauthy [Econ. Lett. 68 (2002) 279] (hereafter BW). Claim 4 is indeed poorly stated and proved while in the proof of Theorem 1 payoffs for the price subgame are incorrectly deriv...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Economics letters 2004-08, Vol.84 (2), p.163-166
Hauptverfasser: Boccard, Nicolas, Wauthy, Xavier
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 166
container_issue 2
container_start_page 163
container_title Economics letters
container_volume 84
creator Boccard, Nicolas
Wauthy, Xavier
description We received independent comments from Dan Kovenock and Luis Ubeda regarding proofs of Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 in Boccard and Wauthy [Econ. Lett. 68 (2002) 279] (hereafter BW). Claim 4 is indeed poorly stated and proved while in the proof of Theorem 1 payoffs for the price subgame are incorrectly derived. We apologize for these shortcomings. Fortunately the spirit of the proof is not altered. By slightly weakening the scope of the analysis for capacity choice from mixed strategies into pure ones, we are able to shorten the proof that is presented hereafter.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.econlet.2003.11.020
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_37910123</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0165176504000667</els_id><sourcerecordid>37910123</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-37ae93f7d2985e2d9600e8536a4f058d29f5a7cae03832d2d1c69569c23edeb43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkEtLxDAUhYMoOI7-BKErd615NEnrRnTwyYAbXYeY3mKGmaYmmYH5994y4tbATW5yzzmEj5BLRitGmbpeVeDCsIZccUpFxVhFOT0iM9ZoUWqh62MyQ50smVbylJyltKKU8VbLGdH3EHO0Q1e4sBkh--zDUEz3RdjGIeQibDOOIN0UFjUxgpsk5-Skt-sEF7_nnHw8Prwvnsvl29PL4m5ZulrpXAptoRW97njbSOBdqyiFRgpl657KBp97abWzQEUjeMc75lQrVeu4gA4-azEnV4fcMYbvLaRsNj45WK_tAGGbjNAtMuAChfIgdDGkFKE3Y_QbG_eGUTNhMivzi8lMmAxjBjGh7_XgizCC-zMBLhcm8c4I29S47bHQObV-arFGLKYwSynzlTcYdnsIA0Sy8xBNch4GB52fuJku-H--8wOiXoxJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>37910123</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Bertrand competition and Cournot outcomes: a correction</title><source>RePEc</source><source>ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)</source><creator>Boccard, Nicolas ; Wauthy, Xavier</creator><creatorcontrib>Boccard, Nicolas ; Wauthy, Xavier</creatorcontrib><description>We received independent comments from Dan Kovenock and Luis Ubeda regarding proofs of Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 in Boccard and Wauthy [Econ. Lett. 68 (2002) 279] (hereafter BW). Claim 4 is indeed poorly stated and proved while in the proof of Theorem 1 payoffs for the price subgame are incorrectly derived. We apologize for these shortcomings. Fortunately the spirit of the proof is not altered. By slightly weakening the scope of the analysis for capacity choice from mixed strategies into pure ones, we are able to shorten the proof that is presented hereafter.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0165-1765</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1873-7374</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2003.11.020</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Elsevier B.V</publisher><subject>Capacity commitment ; Competition ; Oligopoly ; Price competition</subject><ispartof>Economics letters, 2004-08, Vol.84 (2), p.163-166</ispartof><rights>2004 Elsevier B.V.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-37ae93f7d2985e2d9600e8536a4f058d29f5a7cae03832d2d1c69569c23edeb43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-37ae93f7d2985e2d9600e8536a4f058d29f5a7cae03832d2d1c69569c23edeb43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2003.11.020$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3549,4007,27923,27924,45994</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeecolet/v_3a84_3ay_3a2004_3ai_3a2_3ap_3a163-166.htm$$DView record in RePEc$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Boccard, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wauthy, Xavier</creatorcontrib><title>Bertrand competition and Cournot outcomes: a correction</title><title>Economics letters</title><description>We received independent comments from Dan Kovenock and Luis Ubeda regarding proofs of Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 in Boccard and Wauthy [Econ. Lett. 68 (2002) 279] (hereafter BW). Claim 4 is indeed poorly stated and proved while in the proof of Theorem 1 payoffs for the price subgame are incorrectly derived. We apologize for these shortcomings. Fortunately the spirit of the proof is not altered. By slightly weakening the scope of the analysis for capacity choice from mixed strategies into pure ones, we are able to shorten the proof that is presented hereafter.</description><subject>Capacity commitment</subject><subject>Competition</subject><subject>Oligopoly</subject><subject>Price competition</subject><issn>0165-1765</issn><issn>1873-7374</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>X2L</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkEtLxDAUhYMoOI7-BKErd615NEnrRnTwyYAbXYeY3mKGmaYmmYH5994y4tbATW5yzzmEj5BLRitGmbpeVeDCsIZccUpFxVhFOT0iM9ZoUWqh62MyQ50smVbylJyltKKU8VbLGdH3EHO0Q1e4sBkh--zDUEz3RdjGIeQibDOOIN0UFjUxgpsk5-Skt-sEF7_nnHw8Prwvnsvl29PL4m5ZulrpXAptoRW97njbSOBdqyiFRgpl657KBp97abWzQEUjeMc75lQrVeu4gA4-azEnV4fcMYbvLaRsNj45WK_tAGGbjNAtMuAChfIgdDGkFKE3Y_QbG_eGUTNhMivzi8lMmAxjBjGh7_XgizCC-zMBLhcm8c4I29S47bHQObV-arFGLKYwSynzlTcYdnsIA0Sy8xBNch4GB52fuJku-H--8wOiXoxJ</recordid><startdate>20040801</startdate><enddate>20040801</enddate><creator>Boccard, Nicolas</creator><creator>Wauthy, Xavier</creator><general>Elsevier B.V</general><general>Elsevier</general><scope>DKI</scope><scope>X2L</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20040801</creationdate><title>Bertrand competition and Cournot outcomes: a correction</title><author>Boccard, Nicolas ; Wauthy, Xavier</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c467t-37ae93f7d2985e2d9600e8536a4f058d29f5a7cae03832d2d1c69569c23edeb43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Capacity commitment</topic><topic>Competition</topic><topic>Oligopoly</topic><topic>Price competition</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Boccard, Nicolas</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wauthy, Xavier</creatorcontrib><collection>RePEc IDEAS</collection><collection>RePEc</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Economics letters</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Boccard, Nicolas</au><au>Wauthy, Xavier</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Bertrand competition and Cournot outcomes: a correction</atitle><jtitle>Economics letters</jtitle><date>2004-08-01</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>84</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>163</spage><epage>166</epage><pages>163-166</pages><issn>0165-1765</issn><eissn>1873-7374</eissn><abstract>We received independent comments from Dan Kovenock and Luis Ubeda regarding proofs of Lemma 1 and Theorem 1 in Boccard and Wauthy [Econ. Lett. 68 (2002) 279] (hereafter BW). Claim 4 is indeed poorly stated and proved while in the proof of Theorem 1 payoffs for the price subgame are incorrectly derived. We apologize for these shortcomings. Fortunately the spirit of the proof is not altered. By slightly weakening the scope of the analysis for capacity choice from mixed strategies into pure ones, we are able to shorten the proof that is presented hereafter.</abstract><pub>Elsevier B.V</pub><doi>10.1016/j.econlet.2003.11.020</doi><tpages>4</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0165-1765
ispartof Economics letters, 2004-08, Vol.84 (2), p.163-166
issn 0165-1765
1873-7374
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_37910123
source RePEc; ScienceDirect Journals (5 years ago - present)
subjects Capacity commitment
Competition
Oligopoly
Price competition
title Bertrand competition and Cournot outcomes: a correction
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-08T20%3A45%3A03IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Bertrand%20competition%20and%20Cournot%20outcomes:%20a%20correction&rft.jtitle=Economics%20letters&rft.au=Boccard,%20Nicolas&rft.date=2004-08-01&rft.volume=84&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=163&rft.epage=166&rft.pages=163-166&rft.issn=0165-1765&rft.eissn=1873-7374&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.econlet.2003.11.020&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E37910123%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=37910123&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_els_id=S0165176504000667&rfr_iscdi=true