In this paper, we reconsider two models of noncooperative oligopoly in general equilibrium proposed by Busetto et al. ((2008), (2011)): a version of the Shapley's window model for mixed exchange economies a la Shitovitz and its reformulation a la Cournot-Walras. We introduce the assumption that preferences of the traders belonging to the atomless part are represented by Cobb-Douglas utility functions. This assumption permits us to prove the existence of a Cournot-Nash equilibrium of the Shapley's window model - called Cobb-Douglas-Cournot-Nash equilibrium - without introducing further assumptions on atoms' endowments and preferences previously used by Busetto et al. (2011). Then, we show that the set of the Cobb-Douglas-Cournot-Nash equilibrium allocations coincides with the set of the Cournot-Walras equilibrium allocations.

In this paper, we reconstruct the main developments of the theory of noncooperative oligopoly in general equilibrium, by focusing on the analysis of three prototypical models for pure exchange economies: the model of Cournot-Walras equilibrium of Codognato and Gabszewicz (1991); the model of Cournot-Nash equilibrium originally proposed by Lloyd S. Shapley and known as window model; the model of Cournot-Walras equilibrium of Busetto et al. (2008). We establish, in a systematic way, the relationship between the three notions of equilibrium proposed in these models and the notion of Walras equilibrium. Then, we investigate the relationships among those three notions of equilibrium.

This paper introduces two equilibrium concepts which extend the notion of Stackelberg competition to cover a general equilibrium framework. From the benchmarks of Cournot-Walras economies and of strategic market games, the introduction of an active leader modifies the working of market power and the configuration of strategic interactions. In the context of a simple pure exchange economy, asymptotic identification and welfare results are thus obtained, about Stackelberg general equilibria, compared to Cournot general equilibria and to the competitive equilibrium.