IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ies/wpaper/e201310.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do Retroactive Rebates Imply Lower Prices for Consumers?

Author

Listed:
  • Frank Maier-Rigaud

    (IESEG School of Management (LEM-CNRS))

  • Ulrich Schwalbe

    (Institut für Volkswirtschaftslehre, Universität Hohenheim)

Abstract

Despite a host of recent cases on both sides of the Atlantic, the antitrust implications of retroactive rebates or loyalty discounts are among the most controversial topics in competition law. One of the key beliefs found in the literature is that such schemes lead to lower prices for consumers and that competition authorities therefore need to be particularly prudent in balancing these “obvious" pro-competitive effects against potential foreclosure concerns. Based on a simple model it is shown that retroactive rebates do not necessarily imply lower prices for consumers and that, on the contrary, even total welfare may decline as a result of the introduction of a rebate scheme. In addition to leading to higher prices, rebate schemes may hurt consumers by inducing them to buy a higher quantity than they otherwise would. The belief that rebates increase consumer welfare as they imply lower prices is shown to be based on the fundamentally awed reliance on the non-rebated base price as appropriate counterfactual.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank Maier-Rigaud & Ulrich Schwalbe, 2013. "Do Retroactive Rebates Imply Lower Prices for Consumers?," Working Papers 2013-ECO-10, IESEG School of Management.
  • Handle: RePEc:ies:wpaper:e201310
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ieseg.fr/wp-content/uploads/2013-ECO-10_Maier-Rigaud.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel Crane & Joshua Wright, 2009. "Can Bundled Discounting Increase Consumer Prices Without Excluding Rivals?," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 5.
    2. Nicholas Economides, 2009. "Loyalty/Requirement Rebates and the Antitrust Modernization Commission: What is the Appropriate Liability Standard?," Working Papers 09-02, NET Institute, revised Mar 2009.
    3. Gianluca Faella, 2008. "The Antitrust Assessment Of Loyalty Discounts And Rebates," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 375-410.
    4. M. Adam & F. Maier-Rigaud, 2009. "The Law and Economics of Article 82 EC and the Commission Guidance Paper on Exclusionary Conduct," Post-Print hal-00800756, HAL.
    5. Frank Maier-Rigaud & Ulrich Schwalbe, 2013. "Quantification of Antitrust Damages," Working Papers 2013-ECO-09, IESEG School of Management.
    6. Giacomo Calzolari & Vincenzo Denicol?, 2013. "Competition with Exclusive Contracts and Market-Share Discounts," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2384-2411, October.
    7. Bruce Kobayashi, 2005. "The Economics of Loyalty Rebates and Antitrust Law in the United States," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 1.
    8. Eberhard Feess & Ansgar Wohlschlegel, 2010. "All-Unit Discounts and the Problem of Surplus Division," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 37(3), pages 161-178, November.
    9. Greenlee, Patrick & Reitman, David & Sibley, David S., 2008. "An antitrust analysis of bundled loyalty discounts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(5), pages 1132-1152, September.
    10. Denis Waelbroeck, 2005. "Michelin II: A Per Se Rule Against Rebates by Dominant Companies?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(1), pages 149-171.
    11. Frank P. Maier-Rigaud, 2005. "Switching Costs in Retroactive Rebates – What’s time got to do with it?," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2005_3, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    12. Eric Maskin & John Riley, 1984. "Monopoly with Incomplete Information," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 15(2), pages 171-196, Summer.
    13. Paul Klemperer, 1987. "The Competitiveness of Markets with Switching Costs," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(1), pages 138-150, Spring.
    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. Frank Maier-Rigaud & Ulrich Schwalbe, 2013. "Quantification of Antitrust Damages," Working Papers 2013-ECO-09, IESEG School of Management.
    2. F. Maier-Rigaud & R. Inderst & U. Schwalbe, 2013. "Quantifizierung von Schäden durch Wettbewerbsverstöße," Post-Print hal-00845779, HAL.

    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. Calzolari, Giacomo & Denicolo, Vincenzo, 2010. "Competitive quantity discounts," CEPR Discussion Papers 8144, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Calzolari, Giacomo & Denicolò, Vincenzo, 2011. "On the anti-competitive effects of quantity discounts," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 337-341, May.
    3. Philippe Choné & Laurent Linnemer, 2016. "Nonlinear pricing and exclusion:II. Must-stock products," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 47(3), pages 631-660, August.
    4. Lisa Bruttel, 2019. "Is There a Loyalty-Enhancing Effect of Retroactive Price-Reduction Schemes?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 54(3), pages 575-593, May.
    5. Nicholas Economides, 2014. "Bundling and Tying," Working Papers 14-22, NET Institute.
    6. Eberhard Feess & Ansgar Wohlschlegel, 2010. "All-Unit Discounts and the Problem of Surplus Division," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 37(3), pages 161-178, November.
    7. Yong Chao & Guofu Tan & Adam Chi Leung Wong, 2018. "All†units discounts as a partial foreclosure device," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 49(1), pages 155-180, March.
    8. Ugur Akgun & Ioana Chioveanu, 2012. "Loyalty Discounts," CEDI Discussion Paper Series 12-07, Centre for Economic Development and Institutions(CEDI), Brunel University.
    9. Pagnozzi, Marco & Piccolo, Salvatore & Reisinger, Markus, 2021. "Vertical contracting with endogenous market structure," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    10. Armstrong, Mark, 2013. "A more general theory of commodity bundling," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(2), pages 448-472.
    11. Rastislav Funta, 2014. "Discounts and their Effects – Economic and Legal Approach," DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, European Association Comenius - EACO, issue 4, pages 277-285, December.
    12. Greer, Katja, 2013. "Limiting rival's efficiency via conditional discounts," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79730, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    13. Garrett, Daniel & Gomes, Renato & Maestri, Lucas, 2021. "Oligopoly under incomplete information: On the welfare effects of price discrimination," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    14. Philippe Choné & Laurent Linnemer, 2015. "Nonlinear pricing and exclusion: I. buyer opportunism," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 46(2), pages 217-240, June.
    15. Etro, Federico, 2016. "Research in economics and industrial organization," Research in Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(4), pages 511-517.
    16. Katja Greer, 2013. "Limiting rival's efficiency via conditional discounts," Working Papers 132, Bavarian Graduate Program in Economics (BGPE).
    17. Armstrong, Mark, 2010. "Bundling revisited: substitute products and inter-firm discounts," MPRA Paper 26782, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    18. Caminal, Ramon & Claici, Adina, 2007. "Are loyalty-rewarding pricing schemes anti-competitive?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 657-674, August.
    19. Calzolari, Giacomo & Denicolo, Vincenzo, 2020. "Exploiting rivals' strengths," CEPR Discussion Papers 15520, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. David E. Mills, 2017. "Inducing Cooperation with a Carrot Instead of a Stick," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 50(2), pages 245-261, March.

    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:ies:wpaper:e201310. 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: Lies BOUTEN (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iesegfr.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.