Failing Firm Defense with Entry Deterrence
Under the principle of the Failing Firm Defense (FFD) a merger that would be blocked due to its harmful effect on competition could be nevertheless allowed when (i) the acquired firm is actually failing, (ii) there is no less anti-competitive alternative offer of purchase, (iii) absent the merger, the assets to be acquired would exit the market. We focus on potential anti-competitive effects of a myopic application of the third requirement by studying consequences of a horizontal merger on entry in a Cournot oligopoly with a failing firm. If the merger is blocked entry occurs and, when the industry is highly concentrated, consumer welfare is bigger because gains due to augmented competition exceed losses due to shortage of output.
|Date of creation:||Oct 2006|
|Date of revision:||Oct 2006|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Via Bicocca degli Arcimboldi 8, 20126 Milano|
Web page: http://www.statistica.unimib.it
More information through EDIRC
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Perry, Martin K & Porter, Robert H, 1985. "Oligopoly and the Incentive for Horizontal Merger," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(1), pages 219-227, March.
- Farrell, Joseph & Shapiro, Carl, 1988.
"Horizontal Mergers: An Equilibrium Analysis,"
Department of Economics, Working Paper Series
qt0tp305nx, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Motta, Massimo & Vasconcelos, Helder, 2004.
"Efficiency Gains and Myopic Antitrust Authority in a Dynamic Merger Game,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
4175, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Motta, Massimo & Vasconcelos, Helder, 2005. "Efficiency gains and myopic antitrust authority in a dynamic merger game," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 777-801, December.
- Massimo MOTTA & Helder VASCONCELOS, 2003. "Efficiency Gains and Myopic Antitrust Authority in a Dynamic Merger Game," Economics Working Papers ECO2003/23, European University Institute.
- A. Michael Spence, 1977. "Entry, Capacity, Investment and Oligopolistic Pricing," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 8(2), pages 534-544, Autumn.
- Dixit, Avinash, 1979.
"The Role of Investment in Entry-Deterrence,"
The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS)
140, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
- Lars Persson, 2005. "The Failing Firm Defense," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 175-201, 06.
- Motta,Massimo, 2004. "Competition Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521016919, May.
- Mason, Robin & Weeds, Helen, 2002.
"The Failing Firm Defence: Merger Policy and Entry,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
3664, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Motta,Massimo, 2004. "Competition Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521816632, May.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mis:wpaper:20061002. 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: (Matteo Pelagatti)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.