IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/9905.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Economics of Margin Squeeze

Author

Listed:
  • Rey, Patrick
  • Jullien, Bruno
  • Saavedra, Claudia

Abstract

The paper discusses economic theories of harm for anti-competitive margin squeeze by unregulated and regulated vertically integrated firms. We review both predation and foreclosure theories, as well as the mere exploitation of upstream market power. We show that foreclosure provides an appropriate framework in the case of an unregulated firm, whereas a firm under tight wholesale regulation should be evaluated under the predation paradigm, with an adequate test that we characterize. Finally, although non-exclusionary exploitation of upstream market power may also induce a margin squeeze, banning such a squeeze has ambiguous effects on the competitive outcome; hence, alternative measures, such as a cap on the access price, may provide a better policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Rey, Patrick & Jullien, Bruno & Saavedra, Claudia, 2014. "The Economics of Margin Squeeze," CEPR Discussion Papers 9905, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:9905
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP9905
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cave, Martin, 0. "Encouraging infrastructure competition via the ladder of investment," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 30(3-4), pages 223-237, April.
    2. Oliver Hart & Jean Tirole, 1990. "Vertical Integration and Market Foreclosure," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 21(1990 Micr), pages 205-286.
    3. Briglauer, Wolfgang & Götz, Georg & Schwarz, Anton, 2010. "Can a margin squeeze indicate the need for deregulation? The case of fixed network voice telephony markets," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(10), pages 551-561, November.
    4. Armstrong, Mark & Doyle, Chris & Vickers, John, 1996. "The Access Pricing Problem: A Synthesis," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(2), pages 131-150, June.
    5. George A. Hay & Kathryn McMahon, 2012. "The Diverging Approach to Price Squeezes in the United States and Europe," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 8(2), pages 259-296.
    6. John Vickers, 2010. "Competition Policy and Property Rights," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(544), pages 375-392, May.
    7. Chiara Fumagalli & Massimo Motta, 2013. "A Simple Theory of Predation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(3), pages 595-631.
    8. Jan Bouckaert & Frank Verboven, 2004. "Price Squeezes in a Regulatory Environment," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 26(3), pages 321-351, August.
    9. Farrell Joseph & Shapiro Carl, 2010. "Antitrust Evaluation of Horizontal Mergers: An Economic Alternative to Market Definition," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-41, March.
    10. Whinston, Michael D, 1990. "Tying, Foreclosure, and Exclusion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 837-859, September.
    11. Maya Bacache & Marc Bourreau & Germain Gaudin, 2014. "Dynamic Entry and Investment in New Infrastructures: Empirical Evidence from the Fixed Broadband Industry," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(2), pages 179-209, March.
    12. Cabral, Luis M B & Riordan, Michael H, 1994. "The Learning Curve, Market Dominance, and Predatory Pricing," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 62(5), pages 1115-1140, September.
    13. Jean Tirole, 1988. "The Theory of Industrial Organization," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262200716, December.
    14. Choi, Jay Pil & Stefanadis, Christodoulos, 2001. "Tying, Investment, and the Dynamic Leverage Theory," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(1), pages 52-71, Spring.
    15. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 1993. "A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262121743, December.
    16. 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.
    17. Rey, Patrick & Tirole, Jean, 2007. "A Primer on Foreclosure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 33, pages 2145-2220, Elsevier.
    18. David Spector, 2008. "Some Economics of Margin Squeeze," Post-Print halshs-00754307, HAL.
    19. Hiroshi Kitamura & Noriaki Matsushima & Misato Sato, 2024. "How Does Downstream Firms’ Efficiency Affect Exclusive Supply Agreements?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 64(2), pages 219-242, March.
    20. Aldo González Tissinetti, 2006. "Antitrust and Regulation, Complements or Substitutes? The Case of a Vertically Integrated Firm," Working Papers wp225, University of Chile, Department of Economics.
    21. repec:dpr:wpaper:0878 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Coase, Ronald H, 1972. "Durability and Monopoly," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(1), pages 143-149, April.
    23. J. Gregory Sidak, 2008. "Abolishing The Price Squeeze As A Theory Of Antitrust Liability," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 279-309.
    24. McAfee, R Preston & Schwartz, Marius, 1994. "Opportunism in Multilateral Vertical Contracting: Nondiscrimination, Exclusivity, and Uniformity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(1), pages 210-230, March.
    25. Dennis W. Carlton, 2008. "Should “Price Squeeze” Be A Recognized Form Of Anticompetitive Conduct?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 271-278.
    26. Luís M. B. Cabral & Michael H. Riordan, 1997. "The Learning Curve, Predation, Antitrust, and Welfare," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(2), pages 155-169, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Krämer, Jan & Schnurr, Daniel, 2018. "Margin squeeze regulation and infrastructure competition," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 30-46.
    2. Chiara Fumagalli & Massimo Motta, 2020. "Dynamic Vertical Foreclosure," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63(4), pages 763-812.
    3. Motta, Massimo, 2023. "Self-preferencing and foreclosure in digital markets: Theories of harm for abuse cases," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    4. Zhijun Chen, 2021. "Price Squeezes as an Exploitative Abuse," Monash Economics Working Papers 2021-05, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    5. Horstmann, Niklas & Krämer, Jan & Schnurr, Daniel, 2015. "Upstream Competition and Open Access Regimes: Experimental Evidence," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127149, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    6. Yuta Kittaka & Noriaki Matsushima & Fuyuki Saruta, 2021. "Competition between physical and electronic content retailers," ISER Discussion Paper 1123, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    7. Kittaka, Yuta & Matsushima, Noriaki & Saruta, Fuyuki, 2022. "Negative effect of price-matching policy on traditional retailers in a dual-channel supply chain with different content formats," Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Zhijun Chen, 2021. "Price Squeezes as an Exploitative Abuse," Monash Economics Working Papers 2021-05, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    2. Rey, Patrick & Tirole, Jean, 2007. "A Primer on Foreclosure," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 33, pages 2145-2220, Elsevier.
    3. Belleflamme,Paul & Peitz,Martin, 2015. "Industrial Organization," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9781107687899, January.
    4. Rey, Patrick & Seabright, Paul & Tirole, Jean, 2001. "The Activities of a Monopoly Firm in Adjacent Competitive Markets: Economic Consequences and Implications for Competition Policy," IDEI Working Papers 132, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse, revised 2002.
    5. Committee, Nobel Prize, 2014. "Market power and regulation (scientific background)," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2014-2, Nobel Prize Committee.
    6. Jihui Chen & Qiang Fu, 2017. "Do exclusivity arrangements harm consumers?," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 51(3), pages 311-339, June.
    7. Gaudin, Germain & Saavedra, Claudia, 2014. "Ex ante margin squeeze tests in the telecommunications industry: What is a reasonably efficient operator?," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(2), pages 157-172.
    8. Rosenkranz, Stephanie & Schmitz, Patrick W., 2001. "Vertikale Unternehmenskooperationen," MPRA Paper 6930, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Jihui Chen, 2011. "Do Exclusivity Arrangments Harm Consumers?," Working Paper Series 20111001, Illinois State University, Department of Economics.
    10. Rey, Patrick & Salant, David, 2012. "Abuse of dominance and licensing of intellectual property," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 518-527.
    11. Stole, Lars A., 2007. "Price Discrimination and Competition," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 34, pages 2221-2299, Elsevier.
    12. Lømo, Teis Lunde, 2015. "Risk sharing mitigates opportunism in vertical contracting," Working Papers in Economics 10/15, University of Bergen, Department of Economics.
    13. Calzada, Joan & Martínez-Santos, Fernando, 2014. "Broadband prices in the European Union: Competition and commercial strategies," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 24-38.
    14. Fabian Herweg & Daniel Müller, 2014. "Price Discrimination in Input Markets: Quantity Discounts and Private Information," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 124(577), pages 776-804, June.
    15. Isabel Teichmann & Vanessa von Schlippenbach, 2014. "Collusive Effects of a Monopolist's Use of an Intermediary to Deliver to Retailers," Discussion Papers of DIW Berlin 1440, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research.
    16. Justus Haucap & Torben Stühmeier, 2016. "Competition and antitrust in Internet markets," Chapters, in: Johannes M. Bauer & Michael Latzer (ed.), Handbook on the Economics of the Internet, chapter 9, pages 183-210, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. John Vickers, 2007. "Some Economics of Abuse of Dominance," Economics Series Working Papers 376, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    18. Yongmin Chen, 2014. "Refusal to Deal, Intellectual Property Rights, and Antitrust," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 533-557.
    19. Drew Fudenberg, 2015. "Tirole's Industrial Regulation and Organization Legacy in Economics," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 117(3), pages 771-800, July.
    20. Nakamura, A., 2011. "Estimating switching costs after introducing Fixed-Mobile Convergence in Japan," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 59-71, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Foreclosure; Margin squeeze; Predation; Vertical integration;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • K23 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Regulated Industries and Administrative Law
    • L4 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies
    • L42 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Vertical Restraints; Resale Price Maintenance; Quantity Discounts
    • L43 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Legal Monopolies and Regulation or Deregulation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cpr:ceprdp:9905. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

    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.