Welfare improving common ownership in successive oligopolies: The role of the input market
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates the welfare consequences of common ownership in a successive vertical oligopoly, in which upstream firms produce a homogeneous input and compete in quantities, while downstream firms produce differentiated final products and compete either in quantities or prices. Common ownership in both markets internalizes a negative horizontal externality and a positive vertical externality. The interaction between these externalities shapes market outcomes. Our main results are summarized as follows. If the downstream market is monopolized, common ownership always improves welfare. However, if the upstream market is monopolized, common ownership benefits welfare under Bertrand competition but harms it under Cournot competition when the downstream market is competitive. Further, greater upstream competition weakens the pro‐competitive effect. Under Bertrand (Cournot) competition, common ownership harms welfare unless the upstream is (both upstream and downstream markets are) highly concentrated. These results suggest that whether common ownership benefits consumers and social welfare is crucially dependent on the competitiveness of upstream and downstream markets and the competition mode in the downstream market.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it