Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2407.03504

Capacity, Technology Portfolios, and the Paradox of Concentration

Abstract

Does limiting the largest firm's capacity always lower prices? We model firms competing in supply schedules with multiple technologies, each with constant marginal cost up to capacity. In a tractable model, in which capacity and technological efficiency coexist as distinct sources of market power, we find that when the largest firm leads by efficiency, a small transfer of higher-cost capacity to the leader raises concentration yet lowers prices, contrary to standard antitrust intuition. Larger transfers raise prices, restoring standard intuition and tracing a non-monotone price-concentration relation. We prove existence and uniqueness of equilibrium, derive closed-form conditions for when transfers raise or lower prices, and extend the results to other oligopoly models. Evidence from Colombia's wholesale electricity market, where weather shocks shift hydropower capacity across technology-diversified firms, supports the pattern. Counterfactual transfers lower prices up to 30% in the least concentrated markets. We draw implications for capacity caps, divestitures, and mergers.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michele Fioretti, Junnan He, Jorge Tamayo. 2026-06-08. Capacity, Technology Portfolios, and the Paradox of Concentration. https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.03504

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

The time interpretation of expected utility theory

Ergodicity economics is a new branch of economic theory that notes the conceptual difference between time averages and expectation values, which coincide only for ergodic observables. It postulates that individual agents maximise the time average growth rate of wealth, known widely as growth optimality. This contrasts with the dominant behavioural model in economics, expected utility theory, in which agents maximise expectation values of changes in psychologically transformed wealth. Historically, growth optimality was explored for additive and multiplicative gambles. Here we apply it to a general class of wealth dynamics, extending the range of economic situations where it may be used. Moreover, we show a correspondence between growth optimality and expected utility theory, in which the ergodicity transformation in the former is identified as the utility function in the latter. This correspondence offers a theoretical basis for choosing utility functions and predicts that wealth dynamics are strong determinants of risk preferences.

econ.GN

Monetary Regimes and Trade before the Classical Gold Standard: Evidence from the Latin Monetary Union

This paper reexamines the trade effects of the Latin Monetary Union (LMU), a 19th century agreement to standardize gold and silver coinage among several European countries. The LMU provides a useful setting for studying whether monetary arrangements fostered trade before the classical gold standard, when gold, silver, bimetallic, and paper regimes coexisted. Because some countries already shared other monetary standards, treating all non-member pairs as a single control group mixes pairs with and without alternative forms of monetary coordination. I classify pairs by standard and estimate the LMU effect relative to pairs without a common standard, bringing the comparison closer to those used in the literature on the gold standard and contemporary currency unions. The results suggest that the LMU increased trade between its members by approximately 30\% during its early years, when bimetallism was still credible. These effects subsequently faded, converging to zero by the end of the 1870s. More broadly, these findings also highlight the importance of accounting for the existing monetary regimes when estimating the trade effects of other international policies.

econ.GN

Access to Live AI Advice and Behavior Under Risk: An Incentivized Experiment

Generative AI has become an everyday advisor, and the systems people consult are live and interactive, not pre-scripted. We ask whether access to such a system changes behavior under risk. In an incentivized experiment (N = 158), participants made lottery choices with an optional decision aid presented as a conventional pre-written tool, a live one-shot AI, or a live interactive AI they could query, with information format held equivalent across conditions. Risk preferences are elicited via DOSE. We find no evidence that access to a live AI advisor changes risk aversion.

econ.GN