本文選題：買(mǎi)方壟斷勢(shì)力 + 買(mǎi)方抗衡勢(shì)力��； 參考：《首都經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著中國(guó)零售業(yè)市場(chǎng)集中度的提高,零售商在上下游市場(chǎng)的地位大幅上升,有限的貨架空間和對(duì)消費(fèi)者偏好有效的掌握使得零售商逐漸積聚起買(mǎi)方勢(shì)力,能夠?qū)⿷?yīng)商實(shí)行直接或間接控制,通過(guò)收取通道費(fèi)、要求大量銷(xiāo)售折扣、簽訂排他性協(xié)議等手段對(duì)供應(yīng)商進(jìn)行壓榨,并不斷降低售價(jià)獲得更大的市場(chǎng)份額,使邊緣零售商的利潤(rùn)空間遭到壓縮。本文通過(guò)最高限估計(jì)法對(duì)中國(guó)零售市場(chǎng)福利損失進(jìn)行了測(cè)算,發(fā)現(xiàn)中國(guó)零售商確實(shí)利用買(mǎi)方勢(shì)力并造成了社會(huì)福利損失。在反壟斷法頒布以來(lái),該損失仍然呈現(xiàn)上升趨勢(shì)。鑒于此,政府應(yīng)該有效規(guī)制大型零售商濫用買(mǎi)方勢(shì)力的行為。本文認(rèn)為市場(chǎng)結(jié)構(gòu)不同,零售商具有的買(mǎi)方勢(shì)力以及所造成的社會(huì)福利損失也不同。本文依循S-C-P研究框架對(duì)市場(chǎng)結(jié)構(gòu)進(jìn)行了細(xì)分,以供應(yīng)商是否具有賣(mài)方勢(shì)力為標(biāo)準(zhǔn),將買(mǎi)方勢(shì)力分為買(mǎi)方壟斷勢(shì)力和買(mǎi)方抗衡勢(shì)力,進(jìn)而結(jié)合中國(guó)供應(yīng)商市場(chǎng)現(xiàn)狀得到結(jié)論,中國(guó)大型零售商買(mǎi)方壟斷勢(shì)力和抗衡勢(shì)力同時(shí)并存。再次,為了能夠更為清晰的了解不同買(mǎi)方勢(shì)力對(duì)市場(chǎng)造成的影響,構(gòu)建博弈模型進(jìn)行理論分析并得出:主導(dǎo)零售商具有買(mǎi)方壟斷勢(shì)力時(shí),福利損失的程度相對(duì)更大,但是當(dāng)增加主導(dǎo)零售商數(shù)量和促進(jìn)各方有效競(jìng)爭(zhēng)時(shí)能夠減少損失;當(dāng)主導(dǎo)零售商具有買(mǎi)方抗衡勢(shì)力時(shí),隨著抗衡勢(shì)力的提高,能夠提高消費(fèi)者福利,并且在有效控制邊緣零售商的條件下可以進(jìn)一步改善經(jīng)濟(jì)效率。
[Abstract]:With the increasing concentration of retail market in China, the position of retailers in the upstream and downstream markets has increased significantly. The limited shelf space and effective grasp of consumer preferences make retailers gradually accumulate the power of buyers. Able to exert direct or indirect control over suppliers by charging passage fees, demanding large sales discounts, signing exclusive agreements and other means to squeeze suppliers, and continuously reducing prices to gain a larger market share. Reduce margins for marginal retailers. This paper calculates the welfare loss of Chinese retail market by the maximum limit estimation method, and finds that Chinese retailers do make use of the buyer's power and cause the social welfare loss. Since the promulgation of the anti-monopoly law, the loss is still on the rise. In view of this, the government should effectively regulate the abuse of buyer power by large retailers. This paper argues that different market structure, retailers have different buyer power and social welfare losses. According to the S-C-P research framework, this paper subdivides the market structure, taking whether the supplier has the seller's power as the standard, divides the buyer's power into the buyer's monopoly power and the buyer's counterweight power, and then obtains the conclusion according to the Chinese supplier's market situation. The buyer's monopoly power and the countervailing power of large retailers in China coexist at the same time. Thirdly, in order to understand the influence of different buyer's power on the market more clearly, we build a game model to analyze and draw the conclusion: when the dominant retailer has the monopoly power of buyer, the degree of welfare loss is relatively greater. However, when increasing the number of leading retailers and promoting effective competition between parties, losses can be reduced; when leading retailers have buyer countervailing power, with the increase of countervailing power, consumers' welfare can be improved. Furthermore, the economic efficiency can be further improved under the condition of effective control of marginal retailers.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：首都經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：F724.2

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 劉志彪,石奇;競(jìng)爭(zhēng)、壟斷和市場(chǎng)勢(shì)力[J];產(chǎn)業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)研究;2003年04期

2 劉志彪,石奇;現(xiàn)代產(chǎn)業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)系列講座(九)垂直約束[J];產(chǎn)業(yè)經(jīng)濟(jì)研究;2004年05期

3 賀和平;;零售商市場(chǎng)權(quán)力研究綜述[J];外國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)與管理;2006年03期

，

本文編號(hào)：2062833