Temporary Subsidies, Irreversible Expansion, and Firm Exit in Asymmetric Markets
- 1 Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, USA
- 2 Department of Agribusiness and Applied Economics, North Dakota State University, Fargo, USA
Abstract
Temporary production subsidies are used to promote competition in concentrated industries with persistent cost asymmetry. A common policy assumption is that short-run expansion by higher-cost firms will translate into durable competitive pressure once support is withdrawn. This paper shows why that implication need not hold. In a market where a low-cost incumbent disciplines prices both before and after intervention, a temporary marginal-cost subsidy can rationally induce a higher-cost firm to expand by incurring irreversible fixed costs, even though the subsidy does not improve its long-run competitive position. When the subsidy expires and marginal costs revert, unchanged price discipline combined with higher fixed obligations can render continued operation unprofitable, leading to exit. The analysis isolates a simple mechanism through which temporary subsidies can generate short-run competitive gains while reducing long-run firm viability. Although motivated by recent policy interventions in meatpacking, the mechanism applies more broadly to asymmetric markets in which cost advantages persist and expansion decisions are irreversible.
- Demuynck, T., Herings, P. J., Saulle, R. D., & Seel, C. (2019). Bertrand Competition with Asymmetric Costs: A Solution in Pure Strategies. Theory and Decision, 87, 147-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11238-019-09698-4
- Deneckere, R. J., & Kovenock, D. (1996). Bertrand-Edgeworth Duopoly with Unit Cost Asymmetry. Economic Theory, 8, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01212009
- Dixit, A. K., & Pindyck, R. S. (1994). Investment under Uncertainty. Princeton University Press.
- Keller, A., MacDonald, J. M., & Paudel, K. P. (2024). Concentration and the U.S. Hog Slaughter Industry, 2004-2024. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
- Krumel Jr., T. P. (2017). Anti-Immigration Reform and Reductions in Welfare: Evidence from the Meatpacking Industry. Choices, 32, 1-7.
- MacDonald, J. M. (2014). Technology, Organization, and Financial Performance in U.S. Meatpacking. Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy , 36 , 523-546.
- MacDonald, J. M. (2024). Concentration in U.S. Meatpacking Industry and How It Affects Competition and Cattle Prices. Amber Waves, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
- MacDonald, J. M., & Ollinger, M. E. (2000). Scale Economies and Consolidation in Hog Slaughter. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 82, 334-346. https://doi.org/10.1111/0002-9092.00029
- MacDonald, J. M., Ollinger, M. E., Nelson, K. E., & Handy, C. R. (2000). Consolidation in U.S. Meatpacking. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Agricultural Economic Report No. 785.
- Marquez, R. (1997). A Note on Bertrand Competition with Asymmetric Fixed Costs. Economics Letters, 57, 87-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0165-1765(97)81884-8
- Paudel, K. P., & Keller, A. (2025). Concentration Dynamics in Hog Slaughter: A Decomposition and Herfindahl Neutral Point Approach. In 2025 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting (No. 360974). Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
- Pindyck, R. S. (1991). Irreversibility, Uncertainty, and Investment. Journal of Economic Literature , 29 , 1110-1148.
- Tirole, J. (1988). The Theory of Industrial Organization. MIT Press.
- Vives, X. (1999). Oligopoly Pricing: Old Ideas and New Tools. MIT Press.