Skip to main content
Log in

Partial privatization in an international mixed oligopoly under product differentiation

  • Published:
Journal of Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We consider an international mixed market that comprises two countries, each of which owns one public firm and one private firm. As a benchmark case, we consider a single country that owns all four firms. In both cases, governments decide whether to partially privatize their public firms or not. Under an international mixed market privatization decisions are driven by strategic reasons, while in the benchmark case they are driven by efficiency reasons. We find that whether governments privatize more or less in the former case than in the latter depends on the type of goods produced by the firms (homogeneous, independent in demand, complements and substitutes). We also find that social welfare may be greater under an international mixed market than in the benchmark case. Finally, under an international mixed market there is more privatization when each public firm produces the same good as the domestic private firm than when they produce different goods.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Examples of public firms include Électricité de France, Korea Development Bank, Areva and the United States Postal Service (Lee et al. 2018).

  2. The OECD (2005) points out that in the EU governments are the largest shareholders in many partially privatized firms.

  3. The Japanese government partially privatized Japan Post, Postal Bank, and Kampo in 2015 (Haraguchi et al. 2018). Since 1978 China has also implemented a privatization policy in order to reform its public firms (Bai et al. 2009). For more examples and new advances in the analysis of partial privatization see Heywood and Ye (2009), Bose et al. (2014) and Chen (2017).

  4. For example, VW and Renault compete with each other but also with domestic and foreign private firms in the European market.

  5. In the real world there are mixed oligopolies in many industries where public, semipublic and private firms may compete. These firms produce a great variety of products, which makes it complicated to design a model that cover all possible cases. We therefore focus on the most representative cases.

  6. Some countries have privatized part of their public television channels. For example, France privatized TF1 in 1987. Another country that has privatized public channels is Chile. In addition, there are semipublic corporations such as Orange and Deutsche Telekom that offer television channels.

  7. This example has limitations since Renault also competes with VW in the market for cars. It is difficult to find an example that fits perfectly with this case due to the wide variety of products that firms manufacture.

  8. Another example is given by competition among telecommunications firms in the European market. They offer mobile phone, land line, Internet and television services. Deutsche Telekom and Orange are corporations partially owned by the German and French governments, respectively. They compete with private operators such as Telefonica Germany, SFR and Bouyagues Telecom. The services offered by Deutsche Telekom and Orange can be either complements or substitutes for the services provided by the private operators.

  9. A related paper is that by Bárcena-Ruiz and Garzón (2020), who analyze mergers between two local public firms when the two goods sold in the market are independent in demand, substitutes or complements.

  10. One exception is the paper by Kato (2006), who analyzes the decision to partially privatize in a single country where several public firms compete with several private firms. In this case, this decision is taken for efficiency reasons since the analysis is restricted to one country.

  11. The decision of governments on whether to fully privatize their public firms for strategic reasons has been analyzed in several papers. Bárcena-Ruiz and Garzón (2005a) consider a single market comprising two countries, each with one public firm and n private firms that produce a homogeneous good using quadratic cost functions. Bárcena-Ruiz and Garzón (2005b) consider a similar framework but assume that firms have constant marginal costs of production and that the public firms are less efficient than the private firms. Czerny et al. (2014) consider a spatial competition model and investigate the effect of port privatization in a setting with two ports located in different countries. Xu et al. (2016) study the effect of the excess burden of taxation on the privatization of public firms in a two-country, two-mixed-markets model.

  12. Cremer et al. (1991) and Anderson et al. (1997) were the first to analyze product differentiation in mixed oligopolies, using the Hotelling model and monopolistic competition, respectively. Later, Matsumura and Matsushima (2004), Matsumura et al. (2009) and Bárcena-Ruiz and Casado-Izaga (2018) use a spatial competition model to analyze the importance of product differentiation.

  13. A related paper is that by Dong et al. (2018), who analyze partial privatization of a state holding corporation with two plants that produce differentiated goods which may be substitutes or complements, assuming a single country. They consider a public firm with two plants and just one country, so there is no partial privatization for strategic reasons. This paper is extended by Bárcena-Ruiz et al. (2019) assuming a partially foreign-owned private sector.

  14. It can be shown that the main results of the paper hold for values of c other than 1.

  15. The same result is obtained in Cases 2 and 3 considered in the paper.

  16. The equilibrium results obtained in the Cases 2 and 3 are defined in a similar way.

  17. We find that \(\beta_{C1}\in \left[ {0, 1} \right]\) for b = 0. When b = 0 the firms in each country produce the same good, which is independent in demand from that produced by the firms in the other country. As a result, there is no strategic behavior by governments, so domestic welfare does not depend on the stake that each government holds in its domestic public firm, which means that \(\beta_{C1}\in \left[ {0, 1} \right]\) for b = 0. This result relies on the assumptions made in the model. Thus, for example, it does not hold if countries have different sizes or if firms have different costs.

  18. This result is in sharp contrast with that of Matsumura (1998), who finds that the public firms are partially privatized under moderate conditions. Matsumura and Kanda (2005) also find that the public firm remains fully public in a free entry market, and Sato and Matsumura (2019) obtain the same result assuming dynamic privatization. However, the mechanism considered in our paper is different from theirs since we consider strategic privatization.

References

  • Anderson SP, de Palma A, Thisse JF (1997) Privatization and efficiency in a differentiated industry. Eur Econ Rev 41:1635–1654

    Google Scholar 

  • Bai CE, Lu J, Tao Z (2009) How does privatization work in China? J Comp Econ 37:453–470

    Google Scholar 

  • Bárcena-Ruiz JC, Casado-Izaga FJ (2018) Optimal size of a residential area within a municipality. J Econ 124:75–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Bárcena-Ruiz JC, Garzón MB (2003) Mixed duopoly, merger and multiproduct firms. J Econ 80:27–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Bárcena-Ruiz JC, Garzón MB (2005a) Economic integration and privatisation under diseconomies of scale. Eur J Political Econ 21:247–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Bárcena-Ruiz JC, Garzón MB (2005b) International trade and strategic privatization. Rev Dev Econ 9:502–513

    Google Scholar 

  • Bárcena-Ruiz JC, Garzón MB (2006) Mixed oligopoly and environmental policy. Span Econ Rev 8:139–160

    Google Scholar 

  • Bárcena-Ruiz JC, Garzón MB (2010) Endogenous timing in a mixed oligopoly with semipublic firms. Port Econ J 9:97–113

    Google Scholar 

  • Bárcena-Ruiz JC, Garzón MB (2014) Multiproduct firms and environmental policy coordination. Environ Resour Econ 59:407–431

    Google Scholar 

  • Bárcena-Ruiz JC, Garzón MB (2018) Privatisation and vertical integration under a mixed duopoly. Econ Syst 42:514–522

    Google Scholar 

  • Bárcena-Ruiz JC, Garzón MB (2020) Merger between local public firms. N Am J Econ Financ 51:100856. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.najef.2018.10.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bárcena-Ruiz JC, Dong Q, Wang LFS (2019) Foreign-owned firms and partial privatization of state holding corporations. Jpn Econ Rev. https://doi.org/10.1111/jere.12223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beladi H, Chakrabarti A, Marjit S (2013) Privatization and strategic mergers across borders. Rev Int Econ 21:432–446

    Google Scholar 

  • Bose A, Pal D, Sappington DEM (2014) The impact of public ownership in the lending sector. Can J Econ 47:1282–1311

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai D, Karasawa-Ohtashiro Y (2015) International cross-ownership of firms and strategic privatization. J Econ 116:39–62

    Google Scholar 

  • Cato S, Matsumura T (2012) Long-run effects of foreign penetration on privatization policies. J Inst Theor Econ 168:444–454

    Google Scholar 

  • Cato S, Matsumura T (2015) Optimal privatisation and trade policies with endogenous market structure. Econ Rec 91:309–323

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang HJ (2007) State-owned enterprise reform. National Development Strategies. Policy Notes. United Nations. Department for Economics and Social Affairs

  • Chao C, Yu E (2006) Partial privatization, foreign competition, and optimum tariff. Rev Int Econ 14:87–92

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen T (2017) Privatization and efficiency: a mixed oligopoly approach. J Econ 120:251–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Colombo S (2016) Mixed oligopolies and collusion. J Econ 118:167–184

    Google Scholar 

  • Corneo G, Jeanne O (1994) Oligopole mixte dans un marché commun. Annales d’Économie et de Statistique 33:73–90

    Google Scholar 

  • Correia-da-Silva J, Pinho J (2018) Collusion in mixed oligopolies and the coordinated effects of privatization. J Econ 124:19–55

    Google Scholar 

  • Cremer H, Marchand M, Thisse JF (1991) Mixed oligopoly with differentiated products. Int J Ind Organ 9:43–53

    Google Scholar 

  • Czerny A, Höf F, Mun S (2014) Hub port competition and welfare effects of strategic privatization. Econ Transp 3:211–220

    Google Scholar 

  • De Fraja G (2009) Mixed oligopoly: Old and new. University of Leicester, Working Paper N° 09/20

  • De Fraja G, Delbono F (1989) Alternative strategies of a public enterprise in oligopoly. Oxford Econ Pap 41:302–311

    Google Scholar 

  • De Fraja G, Delbono F (1990) Game theoretic models of mixed oligopoly. J Econ Surv 4:1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong Q, Bárcena-Ruiz JC (2016) Privatization and entry with switching costs. Manch Sch 85:491–510

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong Q, Bárcena-Ruiz JC, Garzón MB (2018) Partial privatization of state holding corporations. Manch Sch 86:119–138

    Google Scholar 

  • Dong Q, Bárcena-Ruiz JC, Garzón MB (2019) Privatization and environmental policy in a mixed oligopoly. Estud Econ 46:173–190

    Google Scholar 

  • Duval TY, Hamilton SF (2002) Strategic environmental policy and international trade in asymmetric oligopoly markets. Int Tax Public Finance 9:259–271

    Google Scholar 

  • Escrihuela-Villar M, Gutiérrez-Hita C (2019) On competition and welfare enhancing policies in a mixed oligopoly. J Econ 126:259–274

    Google Scholar 

  • Fridman A (2018) Partial privatization in an exhaustible resource industry. J Econ 124:159–173

    Google Scholar 

  • Fujiwara K (2006) Trade patterns in an international mixed oligopoly. Econ Bull 6:1–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Fujiwara K (2007) Partial privatization in a differentiated mixed oligopoly. J Econ 92:51–65

    Google Scholar 

  • Han L, Ogawa H (2008) Economic integration and strategic privatization in an international mixed oligopoly. FinanzArchiv Public Finance Anal 64:352–363

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraguchi J, Matsumura T (2016) Cournot–Bertrand comparison in a mixed oligopoly. J Econ 117:117–136

    Google Scholar 

  • Haraguchi J, Matsumura T, Yoshida S (2018) Competitive pressure from neighboring markets and optimal privatization policy. Jpn World Econ 46:1–8

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris R, Wiens E (1980) Government enterprise: an instrument for the internal regulation of industry. Can J Econ 13:125–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Heywood JS, Ye G (2009) Partial privatization in a mixed duopoly with an R&D rivalry. Bull Econ Res 61:165–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishibashi I, Matsumura T (2006) R&D competition between public and private sectors. Eur Econ Rev 50:1347–1366

    Google Scholar 

  • Ishida J, Matsushima N (2009) Should civil servants be restricted in wage bargaining? A mixed-duopoly approach. J Public Econ 93:634–646

    Google Scholar 

  • Jain R, Pal R (2012) Mixed duopoly, cross-ownership and partial privatization. J Econ 107:45–70

    Google Scholar 

  • Kato K (2006) Can allowing to trade permits enhance welfare in mixed oligopoly? J Econ 88:263–283

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim SL, Lee SH, Matsumura T (2019) Corporate social responsibility and privatization policy in a mixed oligopoly. J Econ 128:67–89

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar A, Saha B (2008) Spatial competition in a mixed duopoly with one partially nationalized firm. J Comp Econ 36:326–341

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee SH (2006) Welfare-improving privatization policy in the telecommunications industry. Contemp Econ Policy 24:237–248

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee S-H, Xu L (2018) Endogenous timing in a private and mixed duopolies with emission taxes. J Econ 124:175–201

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee S-H, Xu L, Chen Z (2013) Competitive privatization and tariff policies in an international mixed duopoly. Manch Sch 81:763–779

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee SH, Matsumura T, Sato S (2018) An analysis of entry-then-privatization model: welfare and policy implications. J Econ 123:71–88

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin MH, Matsumura T (2012) Presence of foreign investors in privatized firms and privatization policy. J Econ 107:71–80

    Google Scholar 

  • Long NV, Stähler F (2009) Trade policy and mixed enterprises. Can J Econ 42:590–614

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu Y, Poddar S (2007) Firm ownership, product differentiation and welfare. Manch Sch 75:210–217

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura T (1998) Partial privatization in mixed duopoly. J Public Econ 70:473–483

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura T, Kanda O (2005) Mixed oligopoly at free entry markets. J Econ 84:27–48

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura T, Matsushima N (2003) Mixed duopoly with product differentiation: sequential choice of location. Aust Econ Pap 42:18–34

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura T, Matsushima N (2004) Endogenous cost differentials between public and rivate enterprises: a mixed duopoly approach. Economica 71:671–688

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura T, Ogawa A (2012) Price versus quantity in a mixed duopoly. Econ Lett 116:174–177

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura T, Okamura M (2015) Competition and privatization policies revisited: the payoff interdependence approach. J Econ 116:137–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura T, Shimizu D (2010) Privatization waves. Manch Sch 78:609–625

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsumura T, Matsushima N, Ishibashi I (2009) Privatization and entries of foreign enterprises in a differentiated industry. J Econ 98:203–219

    Google Scholar 

  • Matsushima N, Matsumura T (2003) Mixed oligopoly and spatial agglomeration. Can J Econ 36:62–87

    Google Scholar 

  • Megginson WL, Netter JM (2001) From state to market: a survey of empirical studies on privatization. J Econ Lit 39:321–389

    Google Scholar 

  • Méndez-Naya J (2008) Merger profitability in mixed oligopoly. J Econ 94:167–176

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrill W, Schneider N (1966) Government firms in oligopoly industries: a short-run analysis. Q J Econ 80:400–412

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2005) Corporate governance of state-owned enterprises: a survey of OECD countries. OECD, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Ohori S (2006) Optimal environmental tax and level of privatization in an international duopoly. J Regul Econ 29:225–233

    Google Scholar 

  • Pal D, White M (1998) Mixed oligopoly, privatization, and strategic trade policy. South Econ J 65:264–281

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker D (1998) Privatisation in the European Union: theory and policy perspectives. Routledge, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker D, Saal D (eds) (2003) International handbook on privatization. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Poyago-Theotoky J (1998) R&D competition in a mixed duopoly under uncertainty and easy imitation. J Comp Econ 26:415–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Sato S, Matsumura T (2019) Dynamic privatization policy. Man Sch 87:37–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Shuai J, Tomaru Y (2017) On privatization of public firms: a partly privatizing approach. papers ssrn.com. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2880573

  • Tomaru Y, Saito M (2010) Mixed duopoly, privatization and subsidization in an endogenous timing framework. Manch Sch 78:41–59

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang LFS, Chen T-L (2010) Do cost efficiency gap and foreign competitors matter concerning optimal privatization policy at the free entry market? J Econ 100:33–49

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu L, Lee S-H, Wang LFS (2016) Free trade agreements and privatization policy with an excess burden of taxation. Jpn World Econ 37–38:55–64

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank two referees for helpful comments. Financial support from Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (ECO2015-66803-P) and Grupos de Investigación UPV/EHU (GIU17/051) is gratefully acknowledged.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María Begoña Garzón.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Case 1: an international mixed market

$$\begin{aligned} q_{i}^{kA} & = a(b^{2} \beta^{k} (12 - 5\beta^{l} ) - 5(6 - \beta^{k} )(6 - \beta^{l} ) + 2b(6 - 5\beta^{k} )(6 - \beta^{l} ))/G_{1} , \\ q_{i}^{kB} & = a(12b(6 - \beta^{l} ) - 5(6 - \beta^{k} )(6 - \beta^{l} ) - b^{2} \beta^{k} (12 - 5\beta^{l} ))/G_{1} , \\ \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned} W^{k} & = ((2a^{2} (75(6 - \beta^{k} )^{2} (6 - \beta^{l} )^{2} - b^{4} (\beta^{k} )^{2} (12 - 5\beta^{l} )^{2} - 10b(6 - \beta^{k} )^{2} (6 - \beta^{l} )(21 - 5\beta^{l} ) \\ & \quad + \;6b^{3} (12 - \beta^{k} (13 - 5\beta^{k} ))(6 - \beta^{l} )(12 - 5\beta^{l} ) - 6b^{2} (9(192 - \beta^{k} (244 - 67\beta^{k} )) \\ & \quad + \;15(60 - \beta^{k} (74 - 17\beta^{k} ))\beta^{l} - 5(15 - \beta^{k} (23 - 5\beta^{k} ))(\beta^{l} )^{2} )))/(G_{1} )^{2} , \\ & \quad {\text{where}}\;G_{1} = b^{2} (12 - 5\beta^{k} )(12 - 5\beta^{l} ) - 25(6 - \beta^{k} )(6 - \beta^{l} ),\; i \ne j;\;i,j = 1,2;\;k \ne l;\;k,l = I,II. \\ \end{aligned}$$

1.2 Case 1: a single country

$$q_{i}^{kA} = 3a(15 - 4\beta^{l} - b(6 - \beta^{l} ))/G_{1} ,\;q_{i}^{kB} = a(3 - \beta^{k} )(15 - 4\beta^{l} - b(6 - \beta^{l} )/G_{2} ,$$
$$\begin{aligned} W^{I} + W^{II} & = a^{2} (2b^{3} (6 - \beta^{k} )^{2} (6 - \beta^{l} )^{2} + (\beta^{k} )^{2} (2853 - 1464\beta^{l} + 160(\beta^{l} )^{2} ) \\ & \quad - \;6\beta^{k} (4185 - 2160\beta^{l} + 244(\beta^{l} )^{2} ) + 9(5400 - 2790\beta^{l} + 317(\beta^{l} )^{2} ) \\ & \quad - \;6b^{2} ((\beta^{k} )^{2} (30 - 10\beta^{l} + (\beta^{l} )^{2} ) + 6(144 - 48\beta^{l} + 5(\beta^{l} )^{2} ) - 2\beta^{k} (144 - 48\beta^{l} + 5(\beta^{l} )^{2} )) \\ & \quad - \;6b(\beta^{k} (897\beta^{l} - 1854 - 85(\beta^{l} )^{2} ) + (\beta^{k} )^{2} (174 - 85\beta^{l} + 8(\beta^{l} )^{2} ) + 6(630 - 309\beta^{l} + 29(\beta^{l} )^{2} )))/(2(G_{2} )^{2} ), \\ & \quad {\text{where}}\;G_{2} = b^{2} (6 - \beta^{k} )(6 - \beta^{l} ) - (15 - 4\beta^{k} )(15 - 4\beta^{l} ),\;i \ne j;\;i,j = 1,2;\;k \ne l;\;k,l = I,II. \\ \end{aligned}$$

1.3 Case 2: an international mixed market

$$\begin{aligned} q_{i}^{kA} & = a(3(6 + \beta^{k} )(10 - \beta^{l} ) - 7b^{2} \beta^{k} \beta^{l} + 2b^{3} \beta^{k} \beta^{l} - 4b(18 + \beta^{k} (3 - 2\beta^{l} )))/G_{3} , \\ q_{j}^{kB} & = a(3(10 - \beta^{k} )(6 - \beta^{l} ) - 3b^{2} \beta^{k} \beta^{l} + 2b^{3} \beta^{k} \beta^{l} - 2b(36 - (6 - \beta^{k} )\beta^{l} ))/G_{3} , \\ \end{aligned}$$
$$\begin{aligned} W^{k} & = (2a^{2} (18(72(5 - 2b)^{2} (3 + b) - 12(14 + b)(5 - 2b)\beta^{k} - (73 - 16(5 - b)b)(\beta^{k} )^{2} ) \\ & \quad - \;6(36(19 - b)(5 - 2b) + 12( - 45 + b(6 + b(48 - b(23 + 4(2 - b)b))))\beta^{k} \\ & \quad + \;(1 - b)(3 - 2b)(b(22 + b) - 14)(\beta^{k} )^{2} )\beta^{l} + (18(77 - 8(5 - b)b) - 6(1 - b)(3 - 2b)(13 + (15 - b)b)\beta^{k} \\ & \quad - \;(3 - 2b)^{2} (1 - b)^{2} (1 - b(3 + b(3 + b)))(\beta^{k} )^{2} )(\beta^{l} )^{2} ))/ (G_{3} )^{2} ,\;{\text{where}}\;G_{3} = 9(10 - \beta^{k} )(10 - \beta^{l} ) \\ & \quad + \;4b^{4} \beta^{k} \beta^{l} - b^{2} (144 + 13\beta^{k} \beta^{l} ),\;i \ne j;\;i,j = 1,2;\;k \ne l;\;k,l = I,II. \\ \end{aligned}$$

1.4 Case 3: an international mixed market

$$q_{i}^{kA} = a\left( {5 - 2b} \right)\left( {6 + \beta^{k} - \beta^{l} } \right)/3G_{4} ,\; q_{j}^{kB} = a\left( {10 - 4b - \beta^{k} - \beta ^{l} } \right)/G_{4} .$$
$$\begin{aligned} W^{k} & = (a^{2} (5400 + 288b^{3} - 73(\beta^{k} )^{2} - 1140\beta^{l} + 77(\beta^{l} )^{2} - 8^{k} (105 - 13\beta^{l} ) + 4b(20(\beta^{k} )^{2} - 630 \\ & \quad + \;\beta^{k} (69 - 10\beta^{l} ) + 129\beta^{l} - 10(\beta^{l} )^{2} ) - 8b^{2} (72 + 2(\beta^{k} )^{2} + 3\beta^{l} - (\beta^{l} )^{2} - \beta^{k} (3 + \beta^{l} ))))/(9(G_{4} )^{2} ), \\ & \quad {\text{where}}\;G_{4} = (5(10 - \beta^{k} - \beta ^{l} ) - 8b^{2} ),\;i \ne j;\;i, \, j = 1,2;\;k \ne l;\;k,l = I,II. \\ \end{aligned}$$

1.5 Case 3: a single country

$$q_{i}^{kA} = a\left( {5 - 2b} \right)\left( {3 - \beta^{l} } \right)/G_{5} ,\; q_{j}^{kB} = a\left( {15 - \beta^{k} \left( {4 - \beta^{l} } \right) - 4\beta^{l} - b\left( {6 - \beta^{k} - \beta^{l} } \right)} \right)/G_{5} ,$$
$$\begin{aligned} W^{I} + W^{II} & = (a^{2} (5400 - 2790\beta^{l} + 317(\beta^{l} )^{2} - 8b^{3} (6 - \beta^{k} - \beta^{l} )^{2} - 4b^{2} (144 + 5\left( {\beta^{k} } \right)^{2} \\ & \quad - \;6\beta^{k} (8 - \beta^{l} ) - 48\beta^{l} + 5(\beta^{l} )^{2} ) + (\beta^{k} )^{2} (317 - 146\beta^{l} + 12(\beta^{l} )^{2} ) - 2\beta^{k} (1395 - 697\beta^{l} + 73(\beta^{l} )^{2} ) \\ & \quad - \;4b(630 - 309\beta^{l} + 29(\beta^{l} )^{2} + (\beta^{k} )^{2} (29 - 11\beta^{l} ) - \beta^{k} (309 - 144\beta^{l} + 11(\beta^{l} )^{2} ))))/(2(G_{5} )^{2} ), \\ & \quad {\text{where}}\;G_{5}=75 - 12b^{2} + 5\beta^{k} \beta^{l} - 2\left( {10 - b^{2} } \right)\left( {\beta^{k} + \beta^{l} } \right),\;i \ne j;\;i,j = 1,2;k \ne l;k,l = I,II. \\ \end{aligned}$$

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bárcena-Ruiz, J.C., Garzón, M.B. Partial privatization in an international mixed oligopoly under product differentiation. J Econ 131, 77–100 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00712-020-00701-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00712-020-00701-z

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation