IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/doj/eagpap/200706.html

Market Definition: Use and Abuse

Author

Listed:
  • Dennis W. Carlton

    (Economic Analysis Group, Antitrust Division, Department of Justice)

Abstract

A “market” can be rigorously and precisely defined quantitatively, but the information to do so is typically not available. Instead, markets are often defined based on qualitative information, leading to the possibility of errors. I make some practical suggestions to mitigate such errors. When markets are correctly defined, it is the change in market shares that is central to the antitrust analysis, though this is not how courts typically use market definition and shares to analyze Section 2 cases. Unfortunately, there is only a weak link between change in market share and change in competitive performance, and that is why market definition and the use of market shares are very crude tools of analysis. That is why their best use is as safe harbors to quickly screen out frivolous cases from those where the economic forces governing industry behavior need to be carefully studied. But, I explain why even this use of market definition and market shares can be problematic in Section 2 cases.

Suggested Citation

  • Dennis W. Carlton, 2007. "Market Definition: Use and Abuse," EAG Discussions Papers 200706, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
    • Handle: RePEc:doj:eagpap:200706
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.justice.gov/atr/public/eag/225693.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kenneth Heyer, 2006. "Welfare Standards and Merger Analysis: Why not the Best?," EAG Discussions Papers 200608, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
    2. Ken Heyer, 2006. "Welfare Standards and Merger Analysis: Why Not the Best?," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 2.
    3. David Evans & Richard Schmalensee, 2007. "The Industrial Organization of Markets with Two-Sided Platforms," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 3.
    4. Ken Heyer, 2006. "Predicting the Competitive Effects of Mergers by Listening to Customers," EAG Discussions Papers 200611, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division.
    5. Jean‐Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2006. "Two‐sided markets: a progress report," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 645-667, September.
    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. Dennis Carlton & Ken Heyer, 2007. "The Year in Review: Economics at the Antitrust Division, 2006–2007," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 31(2), pages 121-137, September.
    2. Stöhr, Annika, 2021. "Price effects of horizontal mergers: A retrospective on retrospectives," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 151, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    3. Hongjai Rhee & Minsoo Park, 2011. "Fixed-to-mobile call substitution and telephony market definition in Korea," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 40(2), pages 198-218, October.
    4. Dennis W. Carlton, 2007. "Does Antitrust Need to be Modernized?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 155-176, Summer.
    5. Dennis W. Carlton & Mark A. Israel, 2021. "Effects of the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines on Merger Review: Based on Ten Years of Practical Experience," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 58(1), pages 213-234, February.
    6. Lapo Filistrucchi, 2008. "A SSNIP test for two-sided markets: the case of media," Working Papers 08-34, NET Institute, revised Oct 2008.
    7. Granja, João & Paixão, Nuno, 2026. "Bank consolidation and uniform pricing," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 176(C).
    8. John Lopatka, 2011. "Market Definition?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 39(1), pages 69-93, August.
    9. Aashna Mehta & Habib Hasan Farooqui & Sakthivel Selvaraj, 2016. "A Critical Analysis of Concentration and Competition in the Indian Pharmaceutical Market," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-11, February.
    10. Oğuz, Fuat & Akkemik, K. Ali & Göksal, Koray, 2015. "Toward a wider market definition in broadband: The case of Turkey," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 111-119.
    11. Willem H. Boshoff, 2013. "Why define markets in competition cases?," Working Papers 10/2013, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics.
    12. Coate, Malcolm B. & Ulrick, Shawn W. & Yun, John M., 2021. "Tailoring critical loss to the competitive process," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    13. Dennis W. Carlton, 2024. "The 2023 Merger Guidelines: A Critical Assessment," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 65(1), pages 129-145, August.

    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. Kaplow, Louis & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Antitrust," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 1073-1225, Elsevier.
    2. Kenneth Heyer, 2014. "Consumer Welfare and the Legacy of Robert Bork," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(S3), pages 19-32.
    3. Panos Constantinides & Ola Henfridsson & Geoffrey G. Parker, 2018. "Introduction—Platforms and Infrastructures in the Digital Age," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 381-400, June.
    4. Justus Haucap & Ulrich Heimeshoff, 2014. "Google, Facebook, Amazon, eBay: Is the Internet driving competition or market monopolization?," International Economics and Economic Policy, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 49-61, February.
    5. Paul Belleflamme & Julien Jacqmin, 2016. "An Economic Appraisal of MOOC Platforms: Business Models and Impacts on Higher Education," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 62(1), pages 148-169.
    6. Oliver Budzinski & Janina Satzer, 2011. "Sports Business and Multisided Markets: Towards a New Analytical Framework? (Long Version)," Working Papers 1104, International Association of Sports Economists;North American Association of Sports Economists.
    7. Martin Peitz, 2006. "Marktplätze und indirekte Netzwerkeffekte," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 7(3), pages 317-333, August.
    8. Timothy J. Brennan, 2009. "Energy Efficiency: Efficiency or Monopsony?," UMBC Economics Department Working Papers 09-110, UMBC Department of Economics, revised 01 May 2009.
    9. Oliver Budzinski & Janina Satzer, 2008. "Sports Business and the Theory of Multisided Markets," MAGKS Papers on Economics 200811, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    10. Oliver Budzinski & Jürgen-Peter Kretschmer, 2009. "Horizontal Mergers, Involuntary Unemployment, and Welfare," Working Papers 90/09, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    11. Dennis W. Carlton, 2007. "Does Antitrust Need to be Modernized?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 21(3), pages 155-176, Summer.
    12. Fiammetta Gordon & David Squires, 2008. "The Deterrent Effect of UK Competition Enforcement," De Economist, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 411-432, December.
    13. Kamerbeek, S.P., 2009. "Merger Performance and Efficiencies in Horizontal Merger Policy in the US and the EU," MPRA Paper 18064, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Yueqiang Xu & Petri Ahokangas & Jean-Nicolas Louis & Eva Pongrácz, 2019. "Electricity Market Empowered by Artificial Intelligence: A Platform Approach," Energies, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-21, October.
    15. Tsuyoshi Toshimitsu, 2019. "Analysis of Merger Control in a Network Products Market," Manchester School, University of Manchester, vol. 87(5), pages 678-693, September.
    16. Pinar Akman, 2008. "'Consumer' versus 'Customer': the Devil in the Detail," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2008-34, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    17. Müller, Christine & Schweinsberg, Andrea, 2012. "Vom Smart Grid zum Smart Market: Chancen einer plattformbasierten Interaktion," WIK Discussion Papers 364, WIK Wissenschaftliches Institut für Infrastruktur und Kommunikationsdienste GmbH.
    18. Huotari, Pontus & Järvi, Kati & Kortelainen, Samuli & Huhtamäki, Jukka, 2017. "Winner does not take all: Selective attention and local bias in platform-based markets," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 114(C), pages 313-326.
    19. Kirill V. SIMONOV, 2019. "The two-sided trade fair market: Identifying attributes and value creation management," Upravlenets, Ural State University of Economics, vol. 10(4), pages 24-37, September.
    20. Le Pape, Nicolas & Zhao, Kai, 2014. "Horizontal mergers and uncertainty," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy, vol. 8, pages 1-31.

    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:doj:eagpap:200706. 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: Tung Vu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/atrgvus.html .

    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.