Information Sharing in Oligopoly: Sharing Groups and Core-Periphery Architectures^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors study the formation of network structures because of information sharing in oligopoly. They show that, when information signals are homogenous, the set of pairwise stable networks can be characterized by a set of completely connected components, where information sharing is organized in groups. When information signals are heterogenous, core-periphery networks.

The paper is well written, but it is not clear on the contribution it provides. In particular, it is not clear how the results are different from Currarini and Feri (2018). Authors should carify this point. For instance,

- Proposition 4 in this paper is exactly the same than Proposition 5 in Curraririni and Feri (2018).

- Proposition 6 in this paper is exactly the same than Proposition 9 in Currarini and Feri (2018), as well as the dicussion around that. 

- Example 1 in this paper is exactly the same than Figure 18.3 in Currarini and Feri (2018).

As a minor point, in the text authors talk about Currarini and Feri (2015), Currarini and Feri (2016) and Kuhn and Vives (1995), but they are not included in the reference list.

Reference:

Currarini, S., & Feri, F. (2018). Information sharing in oligopoly. In Handbook of Game Theory and Industrial Organization, Volume I. Edward Elgar Publishing.

Author Response

As I explained in correspondence with the editor, the results are contained in a SSRN working paper, which I provided to the editor as well. These results are quoted in a review of the literature, but no published in their integrity and with proofs before.

The minor point made by the referee refers to references that are indeed in the list of the bibliography.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript  explores in which way the information is shared in Oligopoly  showing that  while signals are always shared in groups with a symmetric internal structure, heterogeneous signals, instead,  can be shared in asymmetric core-periphery architectures.

• Manuscript requires a moderate English, style and text changes;
• Abstract: Reviewer suggests to implement the abstract, within the 200 word limit, according to the instruction for author's guidelines. In particular it should be necessary to descrive briefly the literature background related the the topic of the manuscript and the result/conclusion achieved by the authour/s of the manuscript (followed by the possible future ressearch line);
• The author/s in the Introduction states " [...] Section 3 provides a full characterization of pairwise stable networks with and without side-payments and linking costs. [...]" when, instead, the section 3's title is named Result. Reviewer suggests to revise it;
• Author/s should revise all the titles' heading following the instructions for authors' guidelines;
• Conclusion should be better improved especially the last part in which is present the following sentence "[...] When a  rm does not reveal, then it signals a good information, so that the others will update their priors upwards. This would move the thresholds up, and by iteration of this mechanism, the threshold would reach the maximum admissable value of the signal, with the total unraveling of information. We leave this important issue for future resarch. [...]".

 

Author Response

We have rewritten the abstract and the conclusions, and amended the introduction, following the referee’s advice.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

If the authors of this paper are the same authors than the book chapter with the similar results, and they provide in this version the formal proofs that are not included in the previous one, I consider that the manuscript can be accepted for publication.

 

Author Response

thanks