This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Merger Theory and Evidence: The Baby-Food Case Reconsidered

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Richard Dagen
Daniel Richards

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The Federal Trade Commission’s successful challenge to the proposed merger of Heinz and Beech-Nut baby food operations in 2001 remains a controversial case that raises concern over the role of cost efficiencies in merger analysis. Although the FTC argued that the merger would result in an increased likelihood of coordinated effects, we develop an alternative explanation for why the merger was likely to harm consumers even in the absence of such cooperation. We show that a conventional model of vertical product differentiation is able to replicate the premerger market data. Vertical product differentiation assumes that consumers agree on the relative quality of different products, which seems to describe the baby food market. When the model is then used to determine potential post-merger outcomes, we find that only using the most favorable assumptions for Heinz, would the claimed cost-efficiencies have been passed on to consumers. Under any more conservative and realistic scenarios, consumer prices rise substantially. The analysis supports the decision to oppose the merger. It also raises some doubt about the merit of cost efficiencies as a merger defense when an industry is characterized by vertical product differentiation.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.

File URL: http://ase.tufts.edu/econ/papers/200602.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Department of Economics, Tufts University in its series Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University with number 0602.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:tuf:tuftec:0602

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Medford, MA 02155, USA
Phone: (617) 627-3560
Fax: (617) 627-3917
Web page: http://ase.tufts.edu/econ

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Caroline Kalogeropoulos).

Related research
Keywords:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
  1. Steven C. Salop, 1979. "Monopolistic Competition with Outside Goods," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 10(1), pages 141-156, Spring. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Werden, Gregory J & Froeb, Luke M, 1994. "The Effects of Mergers in Differentiated Products Industries: Logit Demand and Merger Policy," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 407-26, October.
  3. Roy Epstein & Daniel Rubinfeld, 2001. "Merger Simulation: A Simplified Approach with New Applications," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series 1002, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley. [Downloadable!]
  4. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Jaskold Gabszewicz, J. & Thisse, J. -F., 1979. "Price competition, quality and income disparities," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 340-359, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  6. Daniel Rubinfeld & Roy Epstein, 2001. "Merger Simulation: A Simplified Approach with New Applications," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series CPC01-026, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  7. George Norman & Lynne Pepall & Daniel Richards, 2002. "Product Differentiation, Cost-Reducing Mergers, and Consumer Welfare," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 0214, Department of Economics, Tufts University. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  8. Baker, Jonathan B & Baresnahan, Timothy F, 1985. "The Gains from Merger or Collusion in Product-differentiated Industries," Journal of Industrial Economics, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 33(4), pages 427-44, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Lawrence J. White, 2003. "Antitrust during the Clinton Administration: An Assessment," Working Papers 03-01, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, 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.)

  1. Gilbert E. Metcalf, 2006. "Value-Added Tax," Discussion Papers Series, Department of Economics, Tufts University 0608, Department of Economics, Tufts University. [Downloadable!]
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? All top Economics journals are listed on RePEc.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-8.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.