Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2601.15303

Ecosystem Competition and Cross-Market Subsidization: A Dynamic Theory of Platform Pricing

Abstract

Platform giants in China have operated with persistently compressed margins in highly concentrated markets for much of the past decade, despite market shares exceeding 60\% in core segments. Standard theory predicts otherwise: either the weaker firm exits, or survivors raise prices to monopoly levels. We argue the puzzle dissolves once firms are viewed as ecosystem optimizers rather than single-market profit maximizers. We develop a dynamic game in which a firm's willingness to subsidize depends on the spillover value its users generate in adjacent markets -- what we call \textit{ecosystem complementarity}. When this complementarity is strong enough, perpetual below-cost pricing emerges as the unique stable equilibrium. The result is not predation in the classical sense; there is no recoupment phase. It is a permanent state of subsidized competition, rational for each firm individually but potentially inefficient in aggregate. We characterize the equilibrium, establish its dynamic stability, and show that welfare losses compound over time as capital flows into subsidy wars rather than innovation. The model's predictions are consistent with observed patterns in Chinese platform markets and suggest that effective antitrust intervention should target cross-market capital flows rather than prices.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Liang Chen. 2026-01-10. Ecosystem Competition and Cross-Market Subsidization: A Dynamic Theory of Platform Pricing. https://arxiv.org/abs/2601.15303

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Measurement of Trustworthiness of the Online Reviews

Online review platforms shape consumer decisions, yet reported ratings and comments may be unreliable when reviewers behave inconsistently. This paper models online reviews as a sequential choice problem and proposes a formal rationality pattern function that links a reviewer's current review to their revealed preference history. Building on a two-way consistency axiom for choices from nested sets, we derive an object-specific support trajectory and an associated degree measure in [0,1] (Average Propensity to Choose a Pattern, APCP) that quantifies review trustworthiness. The measure is designed to support information updating and reduce asymmetric information by discounting reviews that are inconsistent with past behavior. A worked example illustrates how the approach assigns trustworthiness grades to reviews for different objects and how these grades can complement aggregate rating statistics. Finally, a generalized theory has been established.

econ.TH

The Cesàro average criterion on infinite utility streams and its extensions

When evaluating policies that affect future generations, the most commonly used criterion is the discounted utilitarian rule. However, in terms of intergenerational fairness, it is difficult to justify prioritizing the current generation over future generations. This paper axiomatically examines impartial utilitarian rules over infinite-dimensional utility streams. We provide simple characterizations of the social welfare ordering that evaluates utility streams by their long-run average on the domain where the average exists. Furthermore, we derive the necessary and sufficient conditions for the same axioms to hold in a more general domain, the set of bounded utility streams. Some of these results are closely related to the Banach limits, a well-known generalization of the classical limit concept for streams. Thus, this paper can be seen as proposing an appealing subclass of Banach limits through axiomatic analysis.

econ.TH

The Institutional Window: Occupation- and Jurisdiction-Specific Calibration of Liability Signaling for Preserved Human Fallback Capability

Generative AI makes expert output uninformative about the human fallback capability its provider keeps in reserve. A liability commitment can signal that capability: a provider whose staff rescue more of the cases the AI fails pays damages less often, so the commitment certifies an asset built by keeping people on cases and lost by taking them off. This paper asks where contract law leaves room for such a signal. Four legal primitives map a posted cap into retained exposure and close the message space from both sides: litigation viability, the penalty doctrine, displacement of liability to the state or an indemnity pool, and mandatory control of standard terms. Where the law leaves an option of zero exposure, low types pool at zero, intermediate types separate on a schedule anchored at the mandatory floor, and high types pool at the ceiling; where it does not, separation starts at the bottom type. A statutory floor removes the lower pool but pushes the schedule toward the ceiling, so its net effect is not monotone. The penalty doctrine decides whether recovery adequate for deterrence can be restored by contract or only by investing in verifiability. Holding fallback skill constant demands more human engagement the less often the AI fails. A calibration to five occupations and twelve legal configurations in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States locates the binding margin of each cell and supports no ranking by legal family or contracting channel.

econ.TH