IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sek/iefpro/10912816.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Corporate Interest in Antitrust Enforcement

Author

Listed:
  • Krisztina Antal-Pomázi

    (Center for Economic and Regional Studies, Corvinus University of Budapest)

Abstract

Antitrust enforcement is beneficial for consumers as long as they face lower prices, more alternatives to choose from, and get valid information about products and services. But what about the competing firms? Why is it good, or is it good at all for them if they are not allowed to form cartels, not allowed to become a monopoly, or not allowed to use their market power? The first part of the paper aims to answer questions like these. If we look beyond the idea of a welfare-maximizing social planner that creates competition policy in order to promote competition and put restraint on firms willing to monopolize markets, we might ask why such institutions emerge and who really benefits from them? Apart from the evident answer of consumers benefiting from lower prices, we consider the possibility of companies, or rather industries, benefiting from antitrust enforcement. In such a setting, preventing monopolization can be viewed as a service delivered by the regulating body. This service might be valuable for particular firms, but normally cannot be purchased on the market. Our paper presents a game theoretic model showing that such an effect exists under certain, sufficiently general conditions. Firms in an oligopolistic setting, prone to competitive escalation, would be willing to pay for the maintenance of an authority controlling business practices that are (considered) anti-competitive and thus preserving the status quo on the market. Finally, we test our results empirically, based on the practice of the competition authorities of the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. The data support the interest group theory of regulation and they match the predictions of our model.Acknowledgment: The present publication is the outcome of the project ?From Talent to Young Researcher project aimed at activities supporting the research career model in higher education?, identifier EFOP-3.6.3-VEKOP-16-2017-00007 co-supported by the European Union, Hungary and the European Social Fund.

Suggested Citation

  • Krisztina Antal-Pomázi, 2020. "Corporate Interest in Antitrust Enforcement," Proceedings of Economics and Finance Conferences 10912816, International Institute of Social and Economic Sciences.
    • Handle: RePEc:sek:iefpro:10912816
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://iises.net/proceedings/13th-economics-finance-conference-prague/table-of-content/detail?cid=109&iid=003&rid=12816
    File Function: First version, 2020
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. George J. Stigler, 1971. "The Theory of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 2(1), pages 3-21, Spring.
    2. Dilorenzo, Thomas J., 1985. "The origins of antitrust: An interest-group perspective," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 5(1), pages 73-90, June.
    3. Richard A. Posner, 1974. "Theories of Economic Regulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 5(2), pages 335-358, Autumn.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Michael Hantke-Domas, 2003. "The Public Interest Theory of Regulation: Non-Existence or Misinterpretation?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 165-194, March.
    2. Mountain, Bruce R., 2019. "Ownership, regulation, and financial disparity: The case of electricity distribution in Australia," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 60(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Ando, Amy, 1998. "Delay on the Path to the Endangered Species List: Do Costs and Benefits Matter," RFF Working Paper Series dp-97-43-rev, Resources for the Future.
    4. William C. Mitchell, 1990. "Interest Groups: Economic Perspectives and Contributions," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 2(1), pages 85-108, January.
    5. Phares, Jonathan & Dobrzykowski, David D. & Prohofsky, Jodi, 2021. "How policy is shaping the macro healthcare delivery supply chain: The emergence of a new tier of retail medical clinics," Business Horizons, Elsevier, vol. 64(3), pages 333-345.
    6. Oleh Pasko, 2018. "Theories of Regulation in the Context of Modern Practice of Accounting Regulation," Oblik i finansi, Institute of Accounting and Finance, issue 2, pages 37-46, June.
    7. Zheying Wu & Robert Salomon, 2017. "Deconstructing the liability of foreignness: Regulatory enforcement actions against foreign banks," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 48(7), pages 837-861, September.
    8. Elvio Accinelli & Osvaldo Salas, 2019. "El estado de bienestar como un bien público no excluible / The welfare state as a public good not excludable," Estudios Económicos, El Colegio de México, Centro de Estudios Económicos, vol. 34(2), pages 243-273.
    9. Lawrence J. White, 2000. "Reducing the Barriers to International Trade in Accounting Services: Why it Matters, and the Road Ahead," Working Papers 00-04, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
    10. Daniel J. Smith & Macy Scheck, 2023. "Examining the public interest rationale for regulating whiskey with the pure food and drugs act," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 196(1), pages 85-122, July.
    11. Ray Ball, 2009. "Market and Political/Regulatory Perspectives on the Recent Accounting Scandals," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(2), pages 277-323, May.
    12. Anna Dimitrova, 2021. "Captured Energy Market Operation and Liberalization Efforts," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 7, pages 19-31.
    13. Matthew D. Mitchell, 2019. "Uncontestable favoritism," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 181(1), pages 167-190, October.
    14. Simshauser, P., 2020. "Merchant utilities and boundaries of the firm: vertical integration in energy-only markets," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 2039, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    15. Helland, Eric & Sykuta, Michael, 2004. "Regulation and the Evolution of Corporate Boards: Monitoring, Advising, or Window Dressing?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 47(1), pages 167-193, April.
    16. Omer Moav & Zvika Neeman, 2004. "Inspection in Markets for Experience Goods," Discussion Paper Series dp349, The Federmann Center for the Study of Rationality, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem.
    17. Quach, Sara & Thaichon, Park & Hewege, Chandana, 2020. "Triadic relationship between customers, service providers and government in a highly regulated industry," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 55(C).
    18. Niels J. Philipsen, 2010. "Regulation Of Liberal Professions And Competition Policy: Developments In The Eu And China," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 203-231.
    19. Simshauser, Paul & Akimov, Alexandr, 2019. "Regulated electricity networks, investment mistakes in retrospect and stranded assets under uncertainty," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 117-133.
    20. Cornelia Woll & Alvaro Artigas, 2007. "When trade liberalization turns into regulatory reform: The impact on business–government relations in international trade politics," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), pages 121-138, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Antitrust; Public enforcement; Monopolization; Interest groups; Anticompetitive business practices; Competitive escalation;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • 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
    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games

    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:sek:iefpro:10912816. 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: Klara Cermakova (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://iises.net/ .

    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.