The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Collusion and Price Rigidity
Abstract
We consider an infinitely repeated Bertrand game, in which prices are publicly observed and each firm receives a privately observed, i.i.d. cost shock in each period. We focus on symmetric perfect public equilibria, wherein any “punishments” are borne equally by all firms. We identify a tradeoff that is associated with collusive pricing schemes in which the price to be charged by each firm is strictly increasing in its cost level: such “fully sorting” schemes offer efficiency benefits, as they ensure that the lowest-cost firm makes the current sale, but they also imply an informational cost (distorted pricing and/or equilibrium-path price wars), since a higher-cost firm must be deterred from mimicking a lower-cost firm by charging a lower price. A rigid-pricing scheme, where a firm's collusive price is independent of its current cost position, sacrifices efficiency benefits but also diminishes the informational cost. For a wide range of settings, the optimal symmetric collusive scheme requires (i) the absence of equilibrium-path price wars and (ii) a rigid price. If firms are sufficiently impatient, however, the rigid-pricing scheme cannot be enforced, and the collusive price of lower-cost firms may be distorted downward in order to diminish the incentive to cheat. When the model is modified to include i.i.d. public demand shocks, the downward pricing distortion that accompanies a firm's lower-cost realization may occur only when current demand is high.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Filders, R. (1992) · International Journal of Forecasting · doi:10.1016/0169-2070(92)90130-2 · Cited by 16,165
A New Approach to the Economic Analysis of Nonstationary Time Series and the Business Cycle
Hamilton, J. D. (1989) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912559 · Cited by 9,646
The Theory of Industrial Organization
Jean Tirole, Z. (1988) · MIT Press Books · Cited by 8,651
(2013) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/aer.103.6.i · Cited by 7,220
Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance.
Mann, H. M., & Scherer, F. M. (1971) · The Journal of Finance · doi:10.2307/2325977 · Cited by 6,267
Myerson, R. B. (1981) · Mathematics of Operations Research · doi:10.1287/moor.6.1.58 · Cited by 5,920
Theory of Industrial Organization.
Rubinstein, A., & Tirole, J. (1989) · Economica · doi:10.2307/2554286 · Cited by 5,142
Noncooperative Collusion under Imperfect Price Information
Green, E. J., & Porter, R. H. (1984) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1911462 · Cited by 1,998
Stigler, G. J. (1964) · Journal of Political Economy · doi:10.1086/258853 · Cited by 1,760
Envelope Theorems for Arbitrary Choice Sets
Milgrom, P., & Segal, I. (2002) · Econometrica · doi:10.1111/1468-0262.00296 · Cited by 1,235
Cited by
Putting Auction Theory to Work
Milgrom, P. (2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511813825 · Cited by 1,642
A MECHANISM DESIGN APPROACH TO CLIMATE-CHANGE AGREEMENTS
Martimort, D., & Sand-Zantman, W. (2016) · Journal of the European Economic Association · doi:10.1111/jeea.12150 · Cited by 53
Metadata
- Authors
- Athey, S., Bagwell, K., & Sanchirico, C.
- Venue
- Review of Economic Studies
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2004-04
- Volume
- 71
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 317-349
- ISSN
- 0034-6527 (ISSN-L)
- 1467-937X
- OpenAlex
- W2148460419
- Cited by
- 371
- References
- 31
- FWCI
- 63.21
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Collusion and Price Rigidity. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/0034-6527.00286
- The paper
- Athey, S., Bagwell, K., & Sanchirico, C. (2004). Collusion and Price Rigidity. Review of Economic Studies. https://doi.org/10.1111/0034-6527.00286
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.