Industry Structure, Market Rivalry, and Public Policy: A Comment

The competitive and anticompetitive aheories of advertising: an empirical analysis

“…13This definition of large firms is consistent with Demsetz's (1973) definition of dominant firms. 14The definition of small firms 1 is consistent with the argument that the large or dominant firms' performances should be compared to firms of the next largest size to.reduce the disparity of firm sizes both within and between size classes (Bond and Greenberg, 1976). Small firms 2 is defined to observe the extent of disadvantages suffered by small firms as the disparity in size between large and small firms increases.…”

“…Statistically, Porter (1979) also finds similar results, but he attributes the profit rates difference between primary and secondary firms to the hypothesis that primary firms are protected by the mobility barrier and insulated from intergroup rivalry. Whereas Bond and Greenberg's (1976) study modified Demsetz's method of classifying firms by size and included advertising as an independent variable in the profit-concentration model, they did not test the competing hypotheses of advertising.…”