Economics of Regulation and Antitrust - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 13
About This Presentation
Title:

Economics of Regulation and Antitrust

Description:

... of trade (e.g. collusion among rivals regarding prices or territories) ... its and its competitors' costs in order to drive out the rivals from the market. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:186
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 14
Provided by: fch7
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Economics of Regulation and Antitrust


1
Economics of Regulation and Antitrust
  • Dr. David Loomis

2
Lecture 2
  • Antitrust Overview / Monopolization

3
Antitrust laws - another government control of
the market
  • Sherman Act (1890)
  • Section 1 Prohibits contracts, combinations, or
    conspiracies in restraint of trade (e.g.
    collusion among rivals regarding prices or
    territories)
  • Section 2 Prohibits monopolization or attempts
    to monopolize a market

4
Antitrust laws
  • Clayton Act (1914)
  • Section 2 Prohibits anticompetitive price
    discrimination
  • Section 3 Prohibits anticompetitive exclusive
    dealing and tie-in sales
  • Section 7 Limits mergers that may lessen
    competition
  • Private suits under Clayton act bring treble (3X)
    damages

5
Antitrust laws
  • FTC Act (1914)
  • Section 5 Outlaws unfair methods of competition
    (leaving it up to the FTC to define what is
    unfair in specific contexts).

6
Monopolization Structure-Conduct-Performance
Paradigm
  • Structure (number and size of firms, their cost
    and demand conditions, the nature of their
    products, condition of entry and degree of
    regulation)
  • Conduct (decision about pricing and output,
    investment, marketing, and product design)
  • Performance (allocative efficiency,
    profitability, equity, employment effects and
    rate of innovation)

7
Monopolization Market Structure Measurements
  • Concentration Ratio -the percentage of total
    sales in an industry made by the n largest firms
    in that industry. (Can be different if measured
    by assets or employment - see ATT market share)
  • Herfindahl Index

8
Monopolization Market Structure Measurements
  • Where N is the number of firms, xi is the amount
    of industry sales made by firm i, and T is the
    total industry sales.
  • Ranges from 0 to 1 (or if market shares are
    expressed in percents, 0 to 10,000.)
  • If H is over 1800, highly concentrated.
  • If 1000-1800, moderately concentrated.
  • Under 1000, unconcentrated.

9
Monopolization Market Structure Measurements
  • WHAT IS THE RELEVANT MARKET?
  • Product Market - own elasticity of demand (
    change in quantity over change in price) more
    elastic more substitutes
  • Cross elasticity of demand ( change in quantity
    of good x over change in price of good y)
    positive for goods that are substitutes.
    Negative for goods that are complements
  • Geographic market - local, state, national,
    international. Transportation costs play a part.

10
Monopolization Conduct Measures
  • Predatory pricing - cutting prices below its and
    its competitors costs in order to drive out the
    rivals from the market. Areeda-Turner Rule -
    pricing below AVC.
  • Limit pricing - setting a price low enough to
    discourage entry, to guarantee getting lower
    profits for a longer time.

11
Monopolization Performance Measures
  • Lerner Index
  • The greater the L (with a limit of 1), the
    greater the divergence from its perfectly
    competitive level. (MC is hard to measure)
  • Bain index - tries to measure economic profits

12
Monopoly Cases
  • Standard Oil (1911)
  • U.S. Steel (1920)
  • Alcoa (1945)
  • IBM (1982)
  • ATT (1982)
  • DuPont (1956)
  • Microsoft
  • NCAA
  • Ready-To-Eat Cereals

13
Monopolization Is structural evidence enough
to prove monopolization? (Williamson article)
  • No, could be caused by business acumen or
    historical accident and victor deserves the
    spoils
  • Yes, managerial skills are in great supply and
    can be transferable and an accident should be
    self-correcting over time and victor shouldnt
    get spoils forever.
  • Williamson p. 1524, Section 2 of the Sherman
    Act should be interpreted by the courts to
    require a finding that persistent dominance is
    presumptively unlawful, provided only that the
    industry can be judged to have reached an
    advanced stage of development.
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com