IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/mar/magkse/200803.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

A Note on Competing Merger Simulation Models in Antitrust Cases: Can the Best Be Identified?

Author

Listed:
  • Oliver Budzinski

    (Philipps-University Marburg)

Abstract

Advanced economic instruments like simulation models are enjoying an increased popularity in practical antitrust. There is hope that they – being quantitative predictive economic evidence – can substitute for qualitative structural analysis and lead to unambiguous results. This paper demonstrates that it can be theoretically impossible to identify the most appropriate simulation model for any given merger proposal. Due to the inevitable necessity to reduce real-world complexity and multi-parameter character of merger cases, the comparative fit of proposed merger simulation models with mutually incompatible predictions can be the same. This is valid even if an ideal antitrust procedure is assumed. This insight is important regarding two aspects. First, the scope for partisan economic evidence cannot be completely eroded in merger control. Second, simulation cannot eliminate or substitute for qualitative reasoning and economically informed common sense.

Suggested Citation

  • Oliver Budzinski, 2008. "A Note on Competing Merger Simulation Models in Antitrust Cases: Can the Best Be Identified?," MAGKS Papers on Economics 200803, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
  • Handle: RePEc:mar:magkse:200803
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.uni-marburg.de/en/fb02/research-groups/economics/macroeconomics/research/magks-joint-discussion-papers-in-economics/papers/2008-papers/03-2008_budzinski.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2008
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard A. Posner, 1999. "The Law and Economics of the Economic Expert Witness," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 91-99, Spring.
    2. Richard J. Gilbert & Michael L. Katz, 2001. "An Economist's Guide to U.S. v. Microsoft," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 25-44, Spring.
    3. Baker, Jonathan B & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1999. "Empirical Methods in Antitrust Litigation: Review and Critique," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 1(1-2), pages 386-435, Fall.
    4. Epstein, Roy J. & Rubinfeld, Daniel, 2012. "Merger Simulation: A Simplified Approach with New Applications," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt2k9116ph, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    5. Gregory Werden, 2001. "Microsoft's Pricing of Windows and the Economics of Derived Demand Monopoly," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 18(3), pages 257-262, May.
    6. Gregory Werden, 2000. "Expert Report in United States v. Interstate Bakeries Corp. and Continental Baking Co," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 139-148.
    7. Mike Walker, 2005. "The Potential For Significant Inaccuracies In Merger Simulation Models [The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself]," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(3), pages 473-496.
    8. David S. Evans & Albert L. Nichols & Richard Schmalensee, 2005. "U.S. v. Microsoft: Did Consumers Win?," NBER Working Papers 11727, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Lars-Hendrik Roeller & Oliver Stehmann, 2006. "The Year 2005 at DG Competition: The Trend towards a More Effects-Based Approach," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 29(4), pages 281-304, December.
    10. C. Mantzavinos, 2006. "The institutional-evolutionary antitrust model," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 273-291, November.
    11. Damien J. Neven, 2006. "Competition economics and antitrust in Europe [‘Comment: Airtours/First choice: CFI clips MTF's wings’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 21(48), pages 742-791.
    12. Oliver Budzinski, 2008. "Monoculture versus diversity in competition economics," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 32(2), pages 295-324, March.
    13. 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.
    14. Peter A.G. van Bergeijk & Erik Kloosterhuis (ed.), 2005. "Modelling European Mergers," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 3803.
    15. Budzinski, Oliver & Christiansen, Arndt, 2007. "The Oracle/PeopleSoft case: unilateral effects, simulation models and econometrics in contemporary merger control," IBES Diskussionsbeiträge 157, University of Duisburg-Essen, Institute of Business and Economic Studie (IBES).
    16. repec:reg:rpubli:109 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. 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.
    18. Roy J. Epstein & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, 2002. "Merger Simulation: A Simplified Approach with New Applications," Industrial Organization 0201002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    19. 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.
    20. Michael J. Mandel, 1999. "Going for the Gold: Economists as Expert Witnesses," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 113-120, Spring.
    21. 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.
    22. Ivaldi, Marc & Verboven, Frank, 2005. "Quantifying the effects from horizontal mergers in European competition policy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 669-691, December.
    23. Arndt Christiansen, 2006. "The "more economic approach" in EU merger control," CESifo Forum, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 7(01), pages 34-39, April.
    24. Barry Nalebuff, 2002. "Bundling and the GE-Honeywell Merger," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm303, Yale School of Management.
    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. Oliver Budzinski, 2009. "Modern Industrial Economics and Competition Policy: Open Problems and Possible Limits," Working Papers 93/09, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    2. Harbord, David & Hoernig, Steffen, 2010. "Welfare Analysis of Regulating Mobile Termination Rates in the UK (with an Application to the Orange/T-Mobile Merger)," MPRA Paper 21515, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. 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. Oliver Budzinski, 2009. "Modern Industrial Economics and Competition Policy: Open Problems and Possible Limits," Working Papers 93/09, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. Oliver Budzinski, 2010. "An Institutional Analysis of the Enforcement Problems in Merger Control," Working Papers 101/10, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    6. Maarten Pieter Schinkel, 2008. "Forensic Economics In Competition Law Enforcement," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-30.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. Stenborg, Markku, 2004. "Are There Biases in the Market Definition Procedure?," Discussion Papers 903, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    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. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Nisvan Erkal & Daniel Piccinin, 2006. "Horizontal Mergers with Free Entry in Differentiated Oligopolies," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 976, The University of Melbourne.
    14. Alena Zemplinerova, 2010. "Competition policy and economic analysis: What can we learn from firm and industry data?," CERGE-EI Books, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague, edition 1, number b07, May.
    15. Gary Gorton & Matthias Kahl & Richard Rosen, 2005. "Eat or Be Eaten: A Theory of Mergers and Merger Waves," NBER Working Papers 11364, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. 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.
    17. Richard Dagen & Daniel Richards, 2006. "Merger Theory and Evidence: The Baby-Food Case Reconsidered," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 0602, Department of Economics, Tufts University.
    18. Hüschelrath, Kai, 2009. "Methodologische Grundlagen einer Evaluation von Wettbewerbspolitik," ZEW Discussion Papers 09-084, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    19. 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.
    20. Mathiesen, Lars & Nilsen, Øivind Anti & Sørgard, Lars, 2011. "Merger simulations with observed diversion ratios," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 83-91, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    merger simulation; merger control; antitrust; economic evidence;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General
    • C15 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Statistical Simulation Methods: General
    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • A11 - General Economics and Teaching - - General Economics - - - Role of Economics; Role of Economists

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:mar:magkse:200803. 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: Bernd Hayo (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vamarde.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.