IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fth/usjuat/95-02.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Simulation as an Alternative to Structural Merger Policy in Differentiated Products Industries

Author

Listed:
  • Werden, G.J.
  • G.J.
  • Froeb, L.M.

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Werden, G.J. & G.J. & Froeb, L.M., 1995. "Simulation as an Alternative to Structural Merger Policy in Differentiated Products Industries," Papers 95-02, U.S. Department of Justice - Antitrust Division.
    • Handle: RePEc:fth:usjuat:95-02
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Froeb, Luke & Tschantz, Steven & Crooke, Philip, 2003. "Bertrand competition with capacity constraints: mergers among parking lots," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 113(1), pages 49-67, March.
    3. Ronald Cotterill & William Putsis, 2000. "Market Share and Price Setting Behavior for Private Labels and National Brands," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 17(1), pages 17-39, August.
    4. Cramton, Peter & Ingraham, Allan T. & Singer, Hal J., 0. "The effect of incumbent bidding in set-aside auctions: An analysis of prices in the closed and open segments of FCC Auction 35," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(3-4), pages 273-290, April.
    5. 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.
    6. Luke Froeb & Gregory Werden, 2000. "An Introduction to the Symposium on the Use of Simulation in Applied Industrial Organization," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 133-137.
    7. Cory S. Capps & David Dranove & Shane Greenstein & Mark Satterthwaite, 2001. "The Silent Majority Fallacy of the Elzinga-Hogarty Criteria: A Critique and New Approach to Analyzing Hospital Mergers," NBER Working Papers 8216, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Gregory Werden, 2000. "Market Delineation under the Merger Guidelines: Monopoly Cases and Alternative Approaches," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 16(2), pages 211-218, March.
    9. Douglas Davis & Bart Wilson, 2006. "Equilibrium Price Dispersion, Mergers and Synergies: An Experimental Investigation of Differentiated Product Competition," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 169-194.
    10. Fabienne Ilzkovitz & Roderick Meiklejohn, 2006. "European Merger Control: Do We Need an Efficiency Defence?," Chapters, in: Fabienne IIzkovitz & Roderick Meiklejohn (ed.), European Merger Control, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Philip Crooke & Luke Froeb & Steven Tschantz & Gregory Werden, 1999. "Effects of Assumed Demand Form on Simulated Postmerger Equilibria," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 15(3), pages 205-217, November.
    12. Froeb, Luke & Tschantz, Steven & Werden, Gregory J., 2005. "Pass-through rates and the price effects of mergers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 703-715, December.
    13. 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.
    14. Gregory Werden & Luke Froeb & James Langenfeld, 2000. "Lost Profits from Patent Infringement: The Simulation Approach," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 213-227.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    MERGERS; PRICES; ENTREPRISES;
    All these keywords.

    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:fth:usjuat:95-02. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Thomas Krichel (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/atrgvus.html .

    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.