Author
Abstract
The article concerns the problem of the geographic market delineation. Market definition is subject to a serious criticism, especially in the case of differentiated products, however, it remains an important element of economic analysis in the Russian antitrust law enforcement. The hypothetical monopolist test is the main approach to the market definition, because it captures well the idea behind the market definition. However, the data required for implementing the hypothetical monopolist test in a way that would give reliable results, is not always available. In this situation alternative approaches to the market definition might be used. This article analyses the Elzinga-Hogarty test, which in combination with a list of price tests might become a useful tool of economic analysis. Its main advantage is that it does not require a lot of data, and its results do not become completely corrupt in the case when some data is missing. The main take away of this article is that in the situation when resources available for an antitrust investigation are limited, and data, which is required to implement the hypothetical monopolist test of necessary quality, is not available, the Elzinga-Hogarty test might become an alternative to the hypothetical monopolist test and be used to define geographic markets. The logic of the test, its limitations and additional evidence, which should be used to make the conclusions reliable, are discussed in this article.
Suggested Citation
Shastitko, A., 2019.
"The problem of the geographic market delineation: the revival of the Elzinga-Hogarty test,"
Journal of Modern Competition, Synergy University, vol. 13(4), pages 5-16.
Handle:
RePEc:snr:mdrcmp:v:13:y:2019:i:4:p:5-16
DOI: 10.24411/1993-7598-2019-10401
Download full text from publisher
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:snr:mdrcmp:v:13:y:2019:i:4:p:5-16. 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: Synergy University Maintainer (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/snrgunv.html .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.