Portfolio Effects and Merger Control: Full-line Forcing as an Entry Deterrence Strategy
AbstractThe ''portfolio effect theory'' developed by the European Commission in merger control is at the center of a fierce international row with the US authorities who believe that this theory has no economic foundations. This paper aims to provide a counter-argument and shows that full-line forcing may be used by the holder a comprehensive range of products as an entry deterrence device to maintain its monopoly power. However, due to buyer power on the retail market, this will happen only if entry is not profitable for the industry as a whole. The effects on consumer welfare are ambiguous. Full-line forcing will reduce prices in the first period, but as it helps maintaining monopoly power, is harmful in the long-term.
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 EconWPA in its series Industrial Organization with number 0301010.
Length: 24 pages
Date of creation: 22 Jan 2003
Date of revision:
Note: Type of Document - Pdf; prepared on PC-ScientificWord; to print on Postscript; pages: 24 ; figures: included
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://220.127.116.11
Portfolio effects; competition policy; full-line forcing; entry deterrence.;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- L4 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
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.:
- Barry Nalebuff, 2004. "Bundling as an Entry Barrier," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 119(1), pages 159-187, February.
- Barry Nalebuff, 2000. "Competing Against Bundles," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm157, Yale School of Management.
- Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 1998.
"The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries,"
NBER Working Papers
6831, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 2002. "The Strategic Use of Tying to Preserve and Create Market Power in Evolving Industries," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 33(2), pages 194-220, Summer.
- Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 1998. "The Strategic Use Of Tying To Preserve And Create Market Power In Evolving Industries," University of Chicago - George G. Stigler Center for Study of Economy and State 145, Chicago - Center for Study of Economy and State.
- Shaffer, Greg, 1991. "Capturing Strategic Rent: Full-Line Forcing, Brand Discounts, Aggregate Rebates, and Maximum Resale Price Maintenance," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(5), pages 557-75, September.
- Adams, William James & Yellen, Janet L, 1976. "Commodity Bundling and the Burden of Monopoly," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 90(3), pages 475-98, August.
- Michael D. Whinston, 1989.
"Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion,"
NBER Working Papers
2995, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Myles,Gareth D., 1995. "Public Economics," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521497695, April.
- Margaret E. Slade, 1998. "The Leverage Theory of Tying Revisited: Evidence from Newspaper Advertising," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 65(2), pages 204-222, October.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (EconWPA).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.