IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v12y2016i4p701-734..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Empirical Comparison Between The Upward Pricing Pressure Test Andmerger Simulation In Differentiated Product Markets

Author

Listed:
  • Lydia Cheung

Abstract

The Upward Pricing Pressure (UPP) test is a new merger screen that focuses onprice effects instead of concentration changes. This article is one of the firstto compare its empirical predictions against that of merger simulations. This isvaluable for practitioners and economists alike, because it shows the extent towhich a quick screening tool will lead to the same decision as a structuralframework for market analysis. I use hypothetical mergers in a big cross-sectionof airline route markets to assess UPP's sign, rank, and magnitude predictions.In its “best case scenario,” it gives correct sign predictions in 90-percentobservations; correct decile predictions in 75-percent observations; and a meanmagnitude difference of $17, when compared against merger simulations. Iinvestigate the performance of both the first and second terms of the UPP usingdifferent hypothetical mergers. Lastly, I explore whether certain market orproduct characteristics lead to large discrepancies in the UPP using modelselection techniques.

Suggested Citation

  • Lydia Cheung, 2016. "An Empirical Comparison Between The Upward Pricing Pressure Test Andmerger Simulation In Differentiated Product Markets," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 12(4), pages 701-734.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:12:y:2016:i:4:p:701-734.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhw026
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. 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.
    2. Cosnita-Langlais, Andreea & Johansen, Bjørn Olav & Sørgard, Lars, 2021. "Upward pricing pressure in two-sided markets: Incorporating rebalancing effects," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    3. Andreea Cosnita-Langlais & Bjørn Olav Johansen & Lars Sorgard, 2018. "Upward Price Pressure in Two-Sided Markets: Incorporating Feedback Effects," Working Papers hal-04141797, HAL.
    4. Russell Pittman, 2018. "Three Economist’s Tools for Antitrust Analysis: A Non-technical Introduction," Contributions to Economics, in: Boris Begović & Dušan V. Popović (ed.), Competition Authorities in South Eastern Europe, pages 155-172, Springer.
    5. Lydia Cheung, 2016. "Antitrust Market Definition and the Sensitivity of the Diversion Ratio," Working Papers 2016-02, Auckland University of Technology, Department of Economics.
    6. Jessica Dutra & Tarun Sabarwal, 2018. "Cost Efficiencies and Upward Pricing Pressure," WORKING PAPERS SERIES IN THEORETICAL AND APPLIED ECONOMICS 201901, University of Kansas, Department of Economics.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L11 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Production, Pricing, and Market Structure; Size Distribution of Firms
    • 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

    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:oup:jcomle:v:12:y:2016:i:4:p:701-734.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    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.