IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/arx/papers/1906.10030.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A New Solution to Market Definition: An Approach Based on Multi-dimensional Substitutability Statistics

Author

Listed:
  • Yan Yang

Abstract

Market definition is an important component in the premerger investigation, but the models used in the market definition have not developed much in the past three decades since the Critical Loss Analysis (CLA) was proposed in 1989. The CLA helps the Hypothetical Monopolist Test to determine whether the hypothetical monopolist is going to profit from the small but significant and non-transitory increase in price (SSNIP). However, the CLA has long been criticized by academic scholars for its tendency to conclude a narrow market. Although the CLA was adopted by the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines (the 2010 Guidelines), the criticisms are likely still valid. In this dissertation, we discussed the mathematical deduction of CLA, the data used, and the SSNIP defined by the Agencies. Based on our research, we concluded that the narrow market conclusion was due to the incorrect implementation of the CLA; not the model itself. On the other hand, there are other unresolvable problems in the CLA and the Hypothetical Monopolist Test. The SSNIP test and the CLA are bright resolutions for market definition problem during their time, but we have more advanced tools to solve the task nowadays. In this dissertation, we propose a model which is based directly on the multi-dimensional substitutability between the products and is capable of maximizing the substitutability of product features within each group. Since the 2010 Guidelines does not exclude the use of models other than the ones mentioned by the Guidelines, our method can hopefully supplement the current models to show a better picture of the substitutive relations and provide a more stable definition of the market.

Suggested Citation

  • Yan Yang, 2019. "A New Solution to Market Definition: An Approach Based on Multi-dimensional Substitutability Statistics," Papers 1906.10030, arXiv.org.
  • Handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1906.10030
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.10030
    File Function: Latest version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lars-Hendrik Röller & Johan Stennek & Frank Verboven, 2006. "Efficiency Gains from Mergers," Chapters, in: Fabienne IIzkovitz & Roderick Meiklejohn (ed.), European Merger Control, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Werden, Gregory J & Froeb, Luke M, 1994. "The Effects of Mergers in Differentiated Products Industries: Logit Demand and Merger Policy," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 407-426, October.
    3. Peter Davis & Pasquale Schiraldi, 2014. "The flexible coefficient multinomial logit (FC-MNL) model of demand for differentiated products," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(1), pages 32-63, March.
    4. Waehrer, Keith & Perry, Martin K, 2003. "The Effects of Mergers in Open-Auction Markets," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 34(2), pages 287-304, Summer.
    5. Weymark, John A, 1985. "Money-Metric Utility Functions," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 26(1), pages 219-232, February.
    6. Gregory Werden & Luke Froeb & Timothy Tardiff, 1996. "The Use of the Logit Model in Applied Industrial Organization," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 3(1), pages 83-105.
    7. Epstein, Roy J. & Rubinfeld, Daniel, 2001. "Merger Simulation: A Simplified Approach with New Applications," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt1c65s24r, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    8. Malcolm Coate & Joseph Simons, 2009. "Critical Loss vs. Diversion Analysis: Clearing up the Confusion," Antitrust Chronicle, Competition Policy International, vol. 12.
    9. Epstein, Roy J. & Rubinfeld, Daniel L., 2001. "Merger Simulation: A Simplified Approach with New Applications," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt9jt389nb, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    10. Robert Tibshirani & Guenther Walther & Trevor Hastie, 2001. "Estimating the number of clusters in a data set via the gap statistic," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 63(2), pages 411-423.
    11. AfDB AfDB, . "Annual Report 2012," Annual Report, African Development Bank, number 461.
    12. Jacob A. Bikker & Sherrill Shaffer & Laura Spierdijk, 2012. "Assessing Competition with the Panzar-Rosse Model: The Role of Scale, Costs, and Equilibrium," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(4), pages 1025-1044, November.
    13. Joseph Farrell & Carl Shapiro, 2011. "Upward Pricing Pressure and Critical Loss Analysis: Response," Antitrust Chronicle, Competition Policy International, vol. 1.
    14. John C. Harsanyi, 1953. "Cardinal Utility in Welfare Economics and in the Theory of Risk-taking," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 61(5), pages 434-434.
    15. Farrell, Joseph & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Improving Critical Loss Analysis," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt0ff249px, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    16. Hosoya, Yuhki, 2013. "Measuring utility from demand," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(1), pages 82-96.
    17. Muellbauer, John, 1976. "Community Preferences and the Representative Consumer," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 44(5), pages 979-999, September.
    18. Salop, Steven C, 1987. "Symposium on Mergers and Antitrust," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 1(2), pages 3-12, Fall.
    19. Rubinfeld, Daniel L. & Epstein, Roy J., 2001. "Merger Simulation: A Simplified Approach with New Applications," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt2sq9s8c8, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    20. Malcolm Coate & Joseph Simons, 2010. "Critical Loss v. Diversion Analysis: Another Attempt at Consensus," Antitrust Chronicle, Competition Policy International, vol. 4.
    21. Jonas Björnerstedt & Frank Verboven, 2014. "Merger simulation with nested logit demand," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 14(3), pages 511-540, September.
    22. Werden, Gregory J & Froeb, Luke M, 1998. "The Entry-Inducing Effects of Horizontal Mergers: An Exploratory Analysis," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(4), pages 525-543, December.
    23. John Muellbauer, 1975. "Aggregation, Income Distribution and Consumer Demand," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 42(4), pages 525-543.
    24. Deaton, Angus S & Muellbauer, John, 1980. "An Almost Ideal Demand System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 312-326, June.
    25. Raymond Deneckere & Carl Davidson, 1985. "Incentives to Form Coalitions with Bertrand Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(4), pages 473-486, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kaplow, Louis & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Antitrust," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 1073-1225, Elsevier.
    2. Nathan H. Miller & Gloria Sheu, 2021. "Quantitative Methods for Evaluating the Unilateral Effects of Mergers," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 58(1), pages 143-177, February.
    3. Miller, Nathan H. & Remer, Marc & Ryan, Conor & Sheu, Gloria, 2017. "Upward pricing pressure as a predictor of merger price effects," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 216-247.
    4. Jéssica Dutra & Tarun Sabarwal, 2020. "Antitrust analysis with upward pricing pressure and cost efficiencies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-31, January.
    5. Oliver Budzinski & Arndt Christiansen, 2007. "The Oracle/PeopleSoft Case: Unilateral Effects, Simulation Models and Econometrics in Contemporary Merger Control," Marburg Working Papers on Economics 200702, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    6. Oliver Budzinski & Isabel Ruhmer, 2010. "Merger Simulation In Competition Policy: A Survey," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 277-319.
    7. Jerome Foncel & Marc Ivaldi & Jrisy Motis, 2008. "An Econometric Workbench for Comparing the Substantive and Dominance Tests in Horizontal Merger Analysis," Working Papers 0833, University of Crete, Department of Economics.
    8. Nisvan Erkal & Daniel Piccinin, 2006. "Horizontal Mergers with Free Entry in Differentiated Oligopolies," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 976, The University of Melbourne.
    9. Jessica Dutra & Tarun Sabarwal, 2018. "Cost Efficiencies and Upward Pricing Pressure," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 201901, University of Kansas, Department of Economics.
    10. Peter Davis & Pasquale Schiraldi, 2014. "The flexible coefficient multinomial logit (FC-MNL) model of demand for differentiated products," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(1), pages 32-63, March.
    11. Marie Goppelsroeder & Maarten Pieter Schinkel & Jan Tuinstra, 2008. "Quantifying The Scope For Efficiency Defense In Merger Control: The Werden‐Froeb‐Index," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(4), pages 778-808, December.
    12. Lundmark, Robert & Wårell, Linda, 2008. "Horizontal mergers in the iron ore industry--An application of PCAIDS," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 129-141, September.
    13. Kai Hüschelrath, 2009. "Detection Of Anticompetitive Horizontal Mergers," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 683-721.
    14. Nathan H. Miller & Marc Remer & Conor Ryan & Gloria Sheu, 2016. "Pass-Through and the Prediction of Merger Price Effects," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(4), pages 683-709, December.
    15. Claudio Agostini & Eduardo Saavedra & Manuel Willington, 2012. "Economies of Scale and Merger Efficiencies: Empirical Evidence from the Chilean Pension Funds Market," ILADES-UAH Working Papers inv285, Universidad Alberto Hurtado/School of Economics and Business.
    16. Kurdin, Alexander & Shastitko, Anastasia, 2013. "The use of economic analysis in antitrust proceedings: an empirical study," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, pages 91-111, August.
    17. Daljord, Øystein & Sørgard, Lars, 2011. "Single-product versus uniform SSNIPs," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 142-146, June.
    18. Clifford Winston & Vikram Maheshri & Scott M. Dennis, 2011. "Long-Run Effects of Mergers: The Case of U.S. Western Railroads," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(2), pages 275-304.
    19. Kwang-Soo Cheong, "undated". "Mergers and Dynamic Oligopoly," Computing in Economics and Finance 1997 126, Society for Computational Economics.
    20. Gregory Swinand & Hugh Hennessy, 2014. "Estimating postal demand elasticities using the PCAIDS method," Chapters, in: Michael A. Crew & Timothy J. J. Brennan (ed.), The Role of the Postal and Delivery Sector in a Digital Age, chapter 5, pages 65-74, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:arx:papers:1906.10030. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: arXiv administrators (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://arxiv.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.