Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/159060
|
| Title: | 補貼或併購？具互補要素垂直供應鏈中的競合關係
Subsidy or Merger? Strategic Coopetition in Vertically Related Supply Chains with Complementary Inputs |
| Authors: | 許哲睿
Xu, Zhe-Rui |
| Contributors: | 溫偉任
Wen, Wei-Jen
許哲睿
Xu, Zhe-Rui |
| Keywords: | 互補要素
連續寡占
價格外部性
雙重邊際化
Complementary Factors
Successive Oligopoly
Price Externality
Double Marginalization |
| Date: | 2025 |
| Issue Date: | 2025-09-01 14:55:06 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究以具互補要素之垂直供應鏈為例，當上游存在獨佔要素廠商會出現雙
重邊際化問題，即定價的垂直外部性;另一方面，具互補性之寡占要素廠商在定價時會對彼此產生水平外部性，這兩種外部性導致最終產品價格偏高、產出受限。面對此結構性困境，下游ODM廠商主要有兩種策略選擇：補貼新進模組廠商以增加競爭，或直接併購現有模組廠商進行垂直整合。本研究旨在建構理論框架，分析這兩種策略的效果差異。本研究採用垂直連續寡占模型，設定上游存在獨占廠商供應要素X，以及數家寡占廠商生產互補要素Y，下游為兩家雙占製造商使用Leontief 技術組裝最終產品。透過理論推導與數值分析，比較基準情境（無補貼、無整合）、補貼策略與垂直整合策略下的市場均衡。
研究發現，補貼策略的均衡型態高度依賴新進廠商進入時需支付的固定成本
和上游生產中間財之寡占廠商數量。當補貼成本很低時，雙方都會選擇補貼，形成(補貼,補貼)納許均衡；當成本很高時，則形成(不補貼,不補貼)均衡；在中等成本下，可能出現囚犯困境或膽小鬼賽局。這是因為受補貼的新進廠商為獨立經營，使競爭對手也能享受要素價格下降的外部效益，產生搭便車問題。相對而言，垂直整合策略展現出明顯優勢。研究證明，給定m≥4時，垂直整合為雙方優勢策略均衡。當兩家下游廠商都進行整合時，對於降低雙重邊際化問題有較好的效果。儘管併購成本必然高於補貼成本，但併購策略可避免外部性問題，同時透過策略性調整要素供給影響競爭對手成本，進而獲得更大競爭優勢。除了競爭優勢外，從社會福利角度分析，也可以發現雙方都整合的社會福利最高。並且市場結構參數（上游互補要素競爭程度）對策略效果具關鍵影響：當上游廠商競爭程度較低時，兩種策略效果都較顯著；隨著上游競爭加劇，策略效益逐漸收斂。
本研究透過理論模型與數值分析發現，垂直整合策略雖然成本較高，但能更
有效解決雙重邊際化問題，並可避免補貼策略可能產生的囚犯困境，在提升社會福利方面表現也較佳。這些發現對面臨類似市場結構的企業決策者和政策制定者具有重要參考價值。未來研究可進一步考慮產品差異化、生產要素替代性及多階層市場結構等擴展方向。
This study investigates a vertically structured supply chain involving complementary components, focusing on the issue of double marginalization that arises when an upstream monopolist supplies one input and several oligopolistic firms supply another complementary input. When both upstream layers possess market power and the inputs are complementary, double marginalization becomes more severe, leading to higher final product prices and restricted output. In response to this structural inefficiency, downstream ODM manufacturers face two strategi coptions: (1)subsidizing new module suppliers to increase upstream competition, or (2) acquiring existing module suppliers to achieve vertical integration. This research aims to construct a theoretical framework to compare these two strategies, analyze their effectiveness, and identify key influencing factors.
We employ a vertically sequential oligopoly model, where a monopolistic upstream supplier provides input X, while multiple oligopolistic firms produce the complementary input Y . Downstream, two duopolistic manufacturers assemble final products using Leontief technology, requiring fixed input proportions. We analyze market equilibrium outcomes under three scenarios: (i) the benchmark case without subsidies or integration, (ii) the subsidy strategy, and (iii) vertical integration.
Our findings show that the equilibrium outcome under the subsidy strategy is highly sensitive to the fixed entry cost for new module suppliers and the number of upstream oligopolists. When subsidy costs are low, both downstream firms choose to subsidize, resulting in a (subsidy, subsidy) Nash equilibrium. When the cost is high, both firms opt not to subsidize. At intermediate cost levels, strategic dilemmas may emerge, such as a prisoner’s dilemma or a chicken game, due to the free-rider problem—since subsidized entrants operate independently, rival firms also benefit from reduced input prices without bearing the cost.
In contrast, the vertical integration strategy shows clear and consistent advantages. The analysis demonstrates that when the number of upstream module suppliers satisfies m ≥ 4, vertical integration becomes the dominant strategy equilibrium for both down stream firms. Joint integration by both firms is particularly effective in mitigating double marginalization. Although acquisition involves higher costs than subsidies, integration avoids externalities and allows firms to strategically influence rival costs through input control, thereby enhancing competitive advantage.
From a social welfare perspective, full integration produces the highest welfare out come, followed by the subsidy strategy, with the benchmark case ranking last. The level of
upstream competition—captured by the number of oligopolistic input suppliers—is a critical determinant of strategy effectiveness: both strategies perform better when upstream competition is limited, but their benefits converge as upstream competition increases.
Overall, this study finds that despite higher implementation costs, vertical integration is more effective at resolving double marginalization, avoiding coordination failures, and achieving superior welfare outcomes. These results offer valuable insights for both corporate decision-makers and policy-makers facing similar supply chain structures. Future research could extend this framework by incorporating product differentiation, input substitutability, or multi-tiered market architectures. |
| Reference: | Consumer News and Business Channel (2016). Foxconn agrees to buy Sharp after slashing original offer. Business News. CNBC.
Consumer News and Business Channel (2024). GM to invest $625 million in joint venture to mine EV battery raw materials in U.S. Auto. CNBC.
Cournot, A. (1838). Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth. In Forerunners of Realizable Values Accounting in Financial Reporting, pp. 3–13. Routledge.
Gabszewicz, J. J. and Zanaj, S. (2011). Free entry in successive oligopolies. International Journal of Economic Theory, 7(2), 179–188.
Gaudet, G. and Van Long, N. (1996). Vertical integration, foreclosure, and profits in the presence of double marginalization. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 5(3), 409–432.
Greenhut, M. L. and Ohta, H. (1979). Vertical integration of successive oligopolists. The American Economic Review, 69(1), 137–141.
Laussel, D. (2008). Buying back subcontractors: The strategic limits of backward integration. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 17(4), 895–911.
Mathewson, G. F. and Winter, R. A. (1984). An economic theory of vertical restraints. The RAND Journal of Economics, 15(1), 27–38.
Matsushima, N. and Mizuno, T. (2012). Equilibrium vertical integration with complementary input markets. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 12(1).
Nocke, V. and White, L. (2007). Do vertical mergers facilitate upstream collusion? American Economic Review, 97(4), 1321–1339.
Ordover, J. A., Saloner, G., and Salop, S. C. (1990). Equilibrium vertical foreclosure. The American Economic Review, 80(1), 127–142.
Rey, P. and Tirole, J. (2007). A primer on foreclosure. In Handbook of Industrial Organization, Vol. 3, pp. 2145–2220.
Salinger, M. A. (1988). Vertical mergers and market foreclosure. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 103(2), 345–356.
Sonnenschein, H. (1968). The dual of duopoly is complementary monopoly: or, two of Cournot’s theories are one. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 316–318.
Spengler, J. J. (1950). Vertical integration and antitrust policy. Journal of Political Economy, 58(4), 347–352.
Wen, W.-J., Lee, W.-C., and Chen, V. K. (2024). To merge or to help related firms merge? Vertical mergers in Cournot oligopolies with complementary inputs. Academia Economic Papers, 52(1), 1–35.
工商時報 (2024). 為競價... 蘋果扶植新供應鏈成常態. 工商時報.
經濟日報 (2021年8月6日). 鴻海半導體大計起步！砸25億買旺宏6吋晶圓廠，將如何助攻電動車大業？轉載自 Business Weekly。撰文：李孟珊、蕭君暉/經濟日報，發布時間：2021‑08‑06 15:44:09. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
國際經營與貿易學系
112351016 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0112351016 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [國際經營與貿易學系 ] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 101601.pdf | | 644Kb | Adobe PDF | 0 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
