4.7 Article

Solving oligopolistic equilibrium problems with convex optimization

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF OPERATIONAL RESEARCH
卷 284, 期 1, 页码 44-52

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejor.2020.01.025

关键词

Convex programming; Partial equilibrium problems; Complementarity problems; Cournot oligopoly; Conjectural variation

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway [209697]
  2. Centre for Sustainable Energy Studies - FME CenSES
  3. Norwegian Centre for Energy Transition Strategies - FME NTRANS [296205]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The approach of choice to analyze markets with oligopolistic competition has traditionally been complementarity modeling. In this paper we show that the majority of partial equilibrium models under imperfect competition in the (energy-)economic literature can in fact be cast as optimization models, not requiring the derivation and implementation of Karush-Kuhn-Tucker conditions. This is achieved by adding appropriate terms accounting for market power exertion to the well-known social welfare maximization objective. The method is applicable to both spatial Cournot oligopoly models and hybrid competition forms often implemented using conjectural variation approaches. We show how optimization and complementarity problems are equivalent, and provide a rationale for the terms accounting for market power exertion. Resulting models are solved orders of magnitude faster using off-the-shelf optimization software, compared to solving complementarity problems. Large problem instances take minutes rather than hours, and one instance solves 640 times faster. The drastically reduced solution times greatly enhance modeling capabilities as they allow increased geographical scope and represent economic, technical and other characteristics in much more detail in equilibrium problems with imperfect competition. We present practical implications for the partial and multi-level equilibrium modeling community. (C) 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据