IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/sunrpe/2001_0001.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Vertical Integration and Competition Policy

Author

Listed:

Abstract

Recently, the European Commission has decided to implement a simplified procedure in the context of vertical integration. If the combined market shares of the merging firms are less than 25 percent, upstream and downstream, the Commission will consider the merger harmless. The purpose of this study is to examine the welfare aspects of vertical integration in a simple model and investigate the accuracy of the proposed rule of thumb. The welfare implications of vertical integration turn out to depend on relative market shares and the degree of product differentiation. Basically, a merger is harmless from a social point of view when the upstream market is relatively concentrated compared to the downstream market and/or if products are sufficiently close substitutes. We therefore suggest an alternative screening rule: If the upstream market is significantly less concentrated than the downstream market, or if products obviously are close substitutes, mergers may be approved at an early stage of the screening process. Otherwise the merger may be detrimental to welfare and the competition authority should evaluate it more carefully.

Suggested Citation

  • Häckner, Jonas, 2001. "Vertical Integration and Competition Policy," Research Papers in Economics 2001:1, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:sunrpe:2001_0001
    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.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Avinash Dixit, 1979. "A Model of Duopoly Suggesting a Theory of Entry Barriers," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 20-32, Spring.
    2. Oliver Hart & Jean Tirole, 1990. "Vertical Integration and Market Foreclosure," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 21(1990 Micr), pages 205-286.
    3. Riordan, Michael H, 1998. "Anticompetitive Vertical Integration by a Dominant Firm," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1232-1248, December.
    4. Hackner, Jonas, 2000. "A Note on Price and Quantity Competition in Differentiated Oligopolies," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 93(2), pages 233-239, August.
    5. Ordover, Janusz A & Saloner, Garth & Salop, Steven C, 1990. "Equilibrium Vertical Foreclosure," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 127-142, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Zanchettin, Piercarlo & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2017. "Vertical integration and product differentiation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 25-57.
    2. Etro, Federico, 2011. "Endogenous market structures and contract theory: Delegation, principal-agent contracts, screening, franchising and tying," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 463-479, May.
    3. Jochen Manegold, 2016. "Stackelberg Competition among Intermediaries in a Differentiated Duopoly with Product Innovation," Working Papers CIE 98, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    4. Thomas Hutzschenreuter & Florian Gröne, 2009. "Changing Vertical Integration Strategies under Pressure from Foreign Competition: The Case of US and German Multinationals," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(2), pages 269-307, March.
    5. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899.
    6. Yingjue Zhou & Tieming Liu & Gangshu Cai, 2019. "Impact of In-Store Promotion and Spillover Effect on Private Label Introduction," Service Science, INFORMS, vol. 11(2), pages 96-112, June.
    7. Jonas Häckner, 2001. "Market Delineation and Product Differentiation," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 81-99, March.
    8. Mao, Zhaofang & Han, Yuqing & Liang, Zhengbo, 2022. "Mode of store-brand introduction and contracting sequence under manufacturer encroachment," International Journal of Production Economics, Elsevier, vol. 253(C).
    9. Joachim Heinzel & Simon Hoof, 2020. "Oligopolistic Upstream Competition with Differentiated Inputs," Working Papers CIE 129, Paderborn University, CIE Center for International Economics.
    10. Sang‐Ho Lee, 2006. "Welfare‐Improving Privatization Policy In The Telecommunications Industry," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(2), pages 237-248, April.
    11. Ricardo Biscaia & Paula Sarmento, 2013. "Location Decisions in a Natural Resource Model of Cournot Competition," FEP Working Papers 509, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
    12. Gelves, J. Alejandro & Heywood, John S., 2016. "Pre-emptive mergers and downstream cost asymmetry," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 23-26.

    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. Zanchettin, Piercarlo & Mukherjee, Arijit, 2017. "Vertical integration and product differentiation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 25-57.
    2. Milliou, Chrysovalantou, 2020. "Vertical integration without intrafirm trade," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    3. Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 2002. "The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(2), pages 194-220, Summer.
    4. Simon Loertscher & Leslie Marx, 2014. "An Oligopoly Model for Analyzing and Evaluating (Re)-Assignments of Spectrum Licenses," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 45(3), pages 245-273, November.
    5. Laurent Linnemer, 2000. "When Backward Integration by a Dominant Firm Improves Welfare," Working Papers 2000-42, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    6. Hunold, Matthias & Schlütter, Frank, 2022. "Supply Contracts under Partial Forward Ownership," LIDAM Discussion Papers CORE 2022003, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    7. Suzuki, Ayako, 2009. "Market foreclosure and vertical merger: A case study of the vertical merger between Turner Broadcasting and Time Warner," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 532-543, July.
    8. Ali Hortaçsu & Chad Syverson, 2007. "Cementing Relationships: Vertical Integration, Foreclosure, Productivity, and Prices," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(2), pages 250-301.
    9. P. Dogan, "undated". "Vertical Networks, Integration, and Connectivity," Working Paper 33644, Harvard University OpenScholar.
    10. Thomas, Charles J., 2011. "Vertical mergers in procurement markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 200-209, March.
    11. Chen, Yongmin, 2001. "On Vertical Mergers and Their Competitive Effects," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(4), pages 667-685, Winter.
    12. Bruno Larue & Olivier Bonroy, 2009. "Seemingly Competitive Food Retail Regulations: Who Do They Really Help?," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 57(3), pages 305-324, September.
    13. Volker Nocke & Lucy White, 2003. "Do Vertical Mergers Facilitate Upstream Collusion? Second Version," PIER Working Paper Archive 05-013, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania, revised 08 Mar 2005.
    14. Normann, Hans-Theo, 2009. "Vertical integration, raising rivals' costs and upstream collusion," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 461-480, May.
    15. Matsushima, Noriaki & Mizuno, Tomomichi, 2013. "Vertical separation as a defense against strong suppliers," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 228(1), pages 208-216.
    16. Ramón Faulí-Oller & Joel Sandonís Díez, 2003. "On The Competitive Effects Of Vertical Integration Under Product Differentiation," Working Papers. Serie AD 2003-31, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    17. Michael A. Salinger, 2021. "The New Vertical Merger Guidelines: Muddying the Waters," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 59(2), pages 161-176, September.
    18. Zava Aydemir & Stefan Buehler, 2002. "Estimating Vertical Foreclosure in U.S. Gasoline Supply," SOI - Working Papers 0212, Socioeconomic Institute - University of Zurich.
    19. Upender Subramanian & Jagmohan S. Raju & Z. John Zhang, 2013. "Exclusive Handset Arrangements in the Wireless Industry: A Competitive Analysis," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 32(2), pages 246-270, March.
    20. Anil Arya & Brian Mittendorf, 2018. "Endogenous timing when a vertically integrated producer supplies a rival," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 54(2), pages 105-123, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Vertical Integration; Merger; Competition Policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L42 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Vertical Restraints; Resale Price Maintenance; Quantity Discounts

    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:hhs:sunrpe:2001_0001. 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: Anne Jensen (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/neisuse.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.