IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v6y2010i2p321-333..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Concept Of Critical Loss For A Group Of Differentiated Products

Author

Listed:
  • Adriaan ten Kate
  • Gunnar Niels

Abstract

In a recent article, Daljord, Sørgard, and Thomassen criticize Katz and Shapiro for applying the standard formula for critical loss to the case in which the price of only one product of the candidate market is increased. They argue that the standard formula does not hold in that case and suggest another expression. We show that this argument is correct, but that the formula proposed by Daljord, Sørgard, and Thomassen does not capture the essence of what critical loss really is. We propose another formula that does. Daljord, Sørgard, and Thomassen also modify the Katz–Shapiro aggregate diversion ratio rule for deciding whether a candidate market is an antitrust market. We show that their rule happens to be correct for the single-price-increase case and that the Katz–Shapiro rule remains valid for uniform price increases, but that in both cases this is for different reasons than mentioned by the authors. We believe that the confusion is due to the fact that the critical-loss concept, which was originally designed for a single homogeneous product, needs some further explanation before it can be applied in a setting of multiple differentiated products. Such explanation is given in this article.

Suggested Citation

  • Adriaan ten Kate & Gunnar Niels, 2010. "The Concept Of Critical Loss For A Group Of Differentiated Products," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 6(2), pages 321-333.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:6:y:2010:i:2:p:321-333.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhp015
    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

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General

    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:6:y:2010:i:2:p:321-333.. 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.