AbstractWe analyse the key determinants of umbrella effects, which arise when the price increase or quantity reduction of a cartel diverts demand to substitute products. Umbrella effects arise irrespective of whether non cartelists act as price takers (“competitive fringe”) or respond strategically to the increased demand. Sizable umbrella effects can also arise when non-cartelists are outside the relevant market (in the sense of a SSNIP test), provided that the cartel’s price increase is substantial. Further, a shift of demand to non-cartelists, triggering a price increase, can be induced also when their purchasers themselves benefit from higher demand as rivals purchase from the cartel and pass-on the respective price increase. To identify the actual damage it is thus key to take into account the overall adjustments among cartel members and outsiders as well as their respective, potentially competing purchasers. We also discuss how future analysis of the endogenous formation of cartels with partial market coverage should inform theories of the determinants of umbrella effects.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by IESEG School of Management in its series Working Papers with number 2013-ECO-17.
Length: 22 pages
Date of creation: Jul 2013
Date of revision:
umbrella effect; partial cartel; pass-on; cartel effect; quantification of damages; merger effects; private enforcement; standing; market definition; cellophane fallacy; antitrust;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
- L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
- L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2013-09-25 (All new papers)
- NEP-COM-2013-09-25 (Industrial Competition)
- NEP-LAM-2013-09-25 (Central & South America)
- NEP-LAW-2013-09-25 (Law & Economics)
- NEP-LTV-2013-09-25 (Unemployment, Inequality & Poverty)
- NEP-MKT-2013-09-25 (Marketing)
- NEP-NEU-2013-09-25 (Neuroeconomics)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Hay, George A & Kelley, Daniel, 1974. "An Empirical Survey of Price Fixing Conspiracies," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(1), pages 13-38, April.
- Reinhard Selten, 1973. "A Simple Model of Imperfect Competition, where 4 are Few and 6 are Many," Working Papers 008, Bielefeld University, Center for Mathematical Economics.
- Salant, Stephen W & Switzer, Sheldon & Reynolds, Robert J, 1983. "Losses from Horizontal Merger: The Effects of an Exogenous Change in Industry Structure on Cournot-Nash Equilibrium," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 98(2), pages 185-99, May.
- Iwan Bos & Joseph E. Harrington, Jr, 2010.
"Endogenous cartel formation with heterogeneous firms,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
RAND Corporation, vol. 41(1), pages 92-117.
- Iwan Bos & Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., 2008. "Endogenous Cartel Formation with Heterogeneous Firms," Economics Working Paper Archive 544, The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics, revised Nov 2008.
- Perry, Martin K & Porter, Robert H, 1985. "Oligopoly and the Incentive for Horizontal Merger," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(1), pages 219-27, March.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Monika Marin).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.