IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ecl/harjfk/rwp13-031.html?utm_source=npr_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20210124&utm_term=5127645&utm_campaign=money&utm_id=50142945&orgid=
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The F.T.C., Oligopoly, and Shared Monopoly

Author

Listed:
  • Scherer, F. M.

    (Harvard University)

Abstract

This paper, written for a centennial commemoration of the founding of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, reviews the history of two major cases tackling one of the most difficult problems in U.S. antitrust jurisprudence: the tetracycline case of the 1950s and 1960s and the suit against four (eventually three) breakfast cereal manufacturers in the 1970s.

Suggested Citation

  • Scherer, F. M., 2013. "The F.T.C., Oligopoly, and Shared Monopoly," Working Paper Series rwp13-031, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
  • Handle: RePEc:ecl:harjfk:rwp13-031
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/citation.aspx?PubId=9101&type=WPN
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Scherer, F.M., 2010. "Pharmaceutical Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 539-574, Elsevier.
    2. Richard Schmalensee, 1978. "Entry Deterrence in the Ready-to-Eat Breakfast Cereal Industry," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 9(2), pages 305-327, Autumn.
    3. Thomas R. Stauffer, 1971. "The Measurement of Corporate Rates of Return: A Generalized Formulation," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 2(2), pages 434-469, Autumn.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. F. Scherer, 2015. "The Federal Trade Commission, Oligopoly, and Shared Monopoly," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 46(1), pages 5-23, February.
    2. Putsis, William Jr. & Dhar, Ravi, 2001. "An empirical analysis of the determinants of category expenditure," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 52(3), pages 277-291, June.
    3. Nagler Matthew G., 2007. "Understanding the Internet's Relevance to Media Ownership Policy: A Model of Too Many Choices," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 7(1), pages 1-28, June.
    4. Karel Janda, 2019. "Earnings Stability and Peer Company Selection for Multiple Based Indirect Valuation," Czech Journal of Economics and Finance (Finance a uver), Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, vol. 69(1), pages 37-75, February.
    5. Claudio Giachetti & Giovanni Battista Dagnino, 2014. "Detecting the relationship between competitive intensity and firm product line length: Evidence from the worldwide mobile phone industry," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 35(9), pages 1398-1409, September.
    6. Fernández, Zulima & Usero Sánchez, María Belén, 2004. "La competencia dinámica entre pioneros y seguidores: aplicación al sector de la telefonía móvil en Europa," DEE - Documentos de Trabajo. Economía de la Empresa. DB db040805, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
    7. Günter J. Hitsch, 2006. "An Empirical Model of Optimal Dynamic Product Launch and Exit Under Demand Uncertainty," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 25(1), pages 25-50, 01-02.
    8. Chakravarthi Narasimhan & Z. John Zhang, 2000. "Market Entry Strategy Under Firm Heterogeneity and Asymmetric Payoffs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(4), pages 313-327, November.
    9. Nevo, Aviv, 2001. "Measuring Market Power in the Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 69(2), pages 307-342, March.
    10. Küpper, Hans-Ulrich & Pedell, Burkhard, 2016. "Which asset valuation and depreciation method should be used for regulated utilities? An analytical and simulation-based comparison," Utilities Policy, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 88-103.
    11. Giovanni B. Ramello, 2002. "Copyright and Antitrust Issues," LIUC Papers in Economics 114, Cattaneo University (LIUC).
    12. Gillen, David W. & Oum, Tae H. & Tretheway, Michael W., 2020. "Entry Barriers and Anti-Competitive Behaviour in a Deregulated Canadian Airline Market," Papers 305967, Canadian Transportation Research Forum (CTRF).
    13. Scherer, F.M., 2010. "Pharmaceutical Innovation," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 0, pages 539-574, Elsevier.
    14. Steven J. Davis & Kevin M. Murphy & Robert H. Topel, 2004. "Entry, Pricing, and Product Design in an Initially Monopolized Market," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 112(S1), pages 188-225, February.
    15. Sanyal, Amal & Patibandla, Murali, 1999. "From Closed to Contestable Markets: Product Differentiation in Indian Durable Consumer Goods Industry," Working Papers 9-1999, Copenhagen Business School, Department of International Economics and Management.
    16. Murooka, Takeshi, 2013. "A note on credible spatial preemption in an entry–exit game," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 118(1), pages 26-28.
    17. Dominique Foray & Gaetan de Rassenfosse & George Abi Younes & Charles Ayoubi & Omar Ballester & Gabriele Cristelli & Matthias van den Heuvel & Ling Zhou & Gabriele Pellegrino & Patrick Gaulé & Elizab, 2020. "COVID-19: Insights from Innovation Economists," Working Papers 10, Chair of Innovation and IP Policy.
      • Younes, George Abi & Ayoubi, Charles & Ballester, Omar & Cristelli, Gabriele & de Rassenfosse, Gaetan & Foray, Dominique & Gaule, Patrick & Pellegrino, Gabriele & van den Heuvel, Matthias & Webster, B, 2020. "COVID-19_Insights from Innovation Economists," SocArXiv b5zae, Center for Open Science.
    18. repec:dgr:rugsom:02g41 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Edward C. Prescott & Stephen L. Parente, 1999. "Monopoly Rights: A Barrier to Riches," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 89(5), pages 1216-1233, December.
    20. Daniel Levy & Andrew T. Young, 2021. "Promise, trust, and betrayal: Costs of breaching an implicit contract," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 87(3), pages 1031-1051, January.

    More about this item

    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:ecl:harjfk:rwp13-031. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/ksharus.html .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.