Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-bslzr Total loading time: 0.001 Render date: 2025-03-17T07:30:30.489Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Insiders’ Dilemma: An Experiment on Merger Formation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2025

Tobias Lindqvist  and
Johan Stennek
Tobias Lindqvist*
Affiliation:
The Research Institute of Industrial Economics, Stockholm, SE10214, Sweden
Johan Stennek*
Affiliation:
The Research Institute of Industrial Economics, Stockholm, SE10214, Sweden
*
email: [email protected]
email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper tests the insiders’ dilemma hypothesis in a laboratory experiment. The insiders’ dilemma means that a profitable merger does not occur, because it is even more profitable for each firm to unilaterally stand as an outsider (Stigler, 1950; Kamien and Zang, 1990, 1993). The experimental data provides support for the insiders’ dilemma, and thereby for endogenous rather than exogenous merger theory. More surprisingly, our data suggests that fairness (or relative performance) considerations also make profitable mergers difficult. Mergers that should occur in equilibrium do not, since they require an unequal split of surplus.

Keywords

coalition formationexperimentinsiders’ dilemmamergersantitrust

JEL classification

C78: Bargaining Theory • Matching Theory L41: Monopolization • Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices G34: Mergers • Acquisitions • Restructuring • Corporate Governance C92: Laboratory, Group Behavior L13: Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Economics , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , September 2005 , pp. 267 - 284
Copyright
Copyright © 2005 Economic Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bradley, J.V. (1968). Distribution-Free Statistical Test. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Davis, D.D. (2002). “Strategic Interactions, Market Information and Predicting the Effects of Mergers in Differentiated Product Markets,” International Journal of Industrial Organization. 20(9), 1277–1312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deneckere, R. and Davidson, C. (1985). “Incentives to Form Coalitions with Bertrand Competition.” Rand Journal of Economics. 16(4), 473–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckbo, B.E. (1983). “Horizontal Mergers, Collusion, and Stockholder Wealth.” Journal of Financial Economics. 11(1-4), 241–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, E. and Schmidt, K.M. (1999). “A Theory of Fairness, Competition, and Cooperation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 114(3), 817–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridolfsson, S.-O. and Stennek, J. (2005). “Hold-up of Anti-Competitive Mergers.” Forthcoming in International Journal of Industrial Organization.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fridolfsson, S.-O. and Stennek, J. (2000). “Why Event Studies do not Detect Anti-Competitive Mergers.” IUI Working Paper No. 542.Google Scholar
Gomes, A. (2000). A Theory of Negotiations and Formation of Coalitions. University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Horn, H. and Persson, L. (2001). “Endogenous Mergers in Concentrated Markets.” International Journal of Industrial Organization. 19(8), 1213–1244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huck, S., Konrad, K.A., Muller, W., and Normann, H.T. (2001). “Mergers and the Perception of Market Power: An Experimental Study.” mimeo. Royal Holloway.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huck, S., Normann, H.T., and Oechssler, J. (2000). “Does Information about Competitors’ Actions Increase or Decrease Competition in Experimental Oligopoly Markets?” International Journal of Industrial Organization. 18(1), 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kagel, J.H. and Roth, A.E. (1995). The Handbook of Experimental Economics. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamien, M.I. and Zang, I. (1990). “The Limits of Monopolization Through Acquisition.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 105(2), 465–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamien, M.I. and Zang, I. (1991). “Competitively Cost Advantageous Mergers and Monopolization.” Games and Economic Behavior. 3(3), 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamien, M.I. and Zang, I. (1993). “Monopolization by Sequential Acquisition.” The Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization. 9(2), 205–229.Google Scholar
Perry, M.K. and Porter, R.H. (1985). “Oligopoly and the Incentive for Horizontal Merger.” American Economic Review. 75(1), 219–227.Google Scholar
Salant, S.W., Switzer, S., and Reynolds, R.J. (1983). “Losses from Horizontal Merger: The Effects of an Exogenous Change in Industry Structure on Cournot-Nash Equilibrium.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. 98(2), 185–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stigler, G.J. (1950). “Monopoly and Oligopoly by Merger.” American Economic Review. 40, 23–34.Google Scholar
Szidarovszky, F. and Yakowitz, S. (1982). “Contributions to Cournot Oligopoly Theory.” Journal of Economic Theory. 28, 51–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar