IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v18y2022i3p709-729..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Risks of Using the Sequential Product-Level SSNIP Approach to Identify Relevant Antitrust Markets‡
[Aggregative games and oligopoly theory: short-run and long-run analysis]

Author

Listed:
  • Jorge Padilla
  • Salvatore Piccolo
  • Pekka Sääskilahti

Abstract

In a recent influential paper Coate et al. (2021) have criticized the sequential product-level approach to market definition in merger review. They argue that a simultaneous market-level approach to critical loss is more appropriate than a product-level critical loss analysis, because under certain plausible demand scenarios (nonlinear demand functions) the latter could yield the wrong answer on market definition—i.e., excessively broad or narrow markets. We extend their analysis by showing that a sequential product-level approach actually leads to an excessively narrow market definition when the typical nonlinear demand functions used in merger analysis are employed.

Suggested Citation

  • Jorge Padilla & Salvatore Piccolo & Pekka Sääskilahti, 2022. "On the Risks of Using the Sequential Product-Level SSNIP Approach to Identify Relevant Antitrust Markets‡ [Aggregative games and oligopoly theory: short-run and long-run analysis]," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(3), pages 709-729.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:18:y:2022:i:3:p:709-729.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhab020
    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.

    More about this item

    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:18:y:2022:i:3:p:709-729.. 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.