IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Merger Simulation in Competition Policy: A Survey

  • Oliver Budzinski

    ()

    (Department of Environmental and Business Economics, University of Southern Denmark)

  • Isabel Ruhmer

    ()

    (CDSE,University of Mannheim, Germany)

Advances in competition economics as well as in computational and empirical methods have offered the scope for the employment of merger simulation models in merger control procedures during the past almost 15 years. Merger simulation is, nevertheless, still a very young and innovative instrument of antitrust and, therefore, its ‘technical’ potential is far from being comprehensively exploited and teething problems in its practical use in the antitrust environment prevail. We provide a classification of state-of-the-art merger simulation models and review their previous employment in merger cases as well as the problems and limitations currently associated with their use in merger control. In summary, merger simulation models represent an important and valuable extension of the toolbox of merger policy. However, they do not qualify as a magic bullet and must be combined with other, more traditional instruments of competition policy in order to comprehensively unfold its beneficial effects. The authors thank Ulrich Schwalbe, Wolfgang Kerber, Arndt Christiansen and Niels Vestergaard for valuable comments on earlier versions of the paper, the participants of the 30th Hohenheimer Oberseminar (Nuernberg, April 2008) for helpful discussion, and Barbara Güldenring for valuable editorial assistance.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://www.sdu.dk/~/media/Files/Om_SDU/Institutter/Miljo/ime/wp/budzinski82.ashx
File Function: First version, 2009-01
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University of Southern Denmark, Department of Environmental and Business Economics in its series Working Papers with number 82/09.

as
in new window

Length: 76 pages
Date of creation: Jan 2009
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:sdk:wpaper:82
Contact details of provider: Postal: Niels Bohrs Vej 9, 6700 Esbjerg
Phone: (+45) 6550 1000
Fax: (+45) 6550 1091
Web page: http://www.sam.sdu.dk/ime
Email:


More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
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.:

as in new window
  1. Epstein, Roy J. & Rubinfeld, Daniel, 2012. "Merger Simulation: A Simplified Approach with New Applications," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt2k9116ph, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  2. Werden, G.J. & Froeb, L.M. & Tardiff, T.J., 1994. "The Use of the Logit Model in Applied Industrial Organization," Papers 94-1, U.S. Department of Justice - Antitrust Division.
  3. Richard J. Gilbert and Michael L. Katz., 2001. "An Economist's Guide to U.S. v. Microsoft," Economics Working Papers E01-300, University of California at Berkeley.
  4. Dalkir, Serdar & Logan, John W. & Masson, Robert T., 2000. "Mergers in symmetric and asymmetric noncooperative auction markets: the effects on prices and efficiency," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(3), pages 383-413, April.
  5. Gregory J. WERDEN, 1997. "Simulating The Effects Of Differentiated Products Mergers: A Practitioners' Guide," Department of Resource Economics Regional Research Project 967, University of Massachusetts.
  6. Aviv Nevo, 2000. "A Practitioner's Guide to Estimation of Random-Coefficients Logit Models of Demand," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(4), pages 513-548, December.
  7. Germán Coloma, 2006. "Econometric estimation of PCAIDS models," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 31(3), pages 587-599, September.
  8. Slade, Margaret E., 2006. "Merger Simulations of Unilateral Effects : What Can We Learn from the UK Brewing Industry?," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 767, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
  9. Luke Froeb & Gregory Werden, 2000. "An Introduction to the Symposium on the Use of Simulation in Applied Industrial Organization," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 133-137.
  10. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(5), pages 1449-1475, December.
  11. Richard A. Posner, 1999. "The Law and Economics of the Economic Expert Witness," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 91-99, Spring.
  12. Philip Crooke & Luke Froeb & Steven Tschantz & Gregory Werden, 1999. "Effects of Assumed Demand Form on Simulated Postmerger Equilibria," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 15(3), pages 205-217, November.
  13. Werden, G.J. & G.J. & Froeb, L.M., 1995. "Simulation as an Alternative to Structural Merger Policy in Differentiated Products Industries," Papers 95-02, U.S. Department of Justice - Antitrust Division.
  14. Gregory Werden, 2001. "Microsoft's Pricing of Windows and the Economics of Derived Demand Monopoly," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 257-262, May.
  15. Deaton, Angus S & Muellbauer, John, 1980. "An Almost Ideal Demand System," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 70(3), pages 312-26, June.
  16. Lundmark, Robert & Nilsson, Mats, 2003. "What do economic simulations tell us? Recent mergers in the iron ore industry," Resources Policy, Elsevier, vol. 29(3-4), pages 111-118.
  17. Berry, Steven & Levinsohn, James & Pakes, Ariel, 1995. "Automobile Prices in Market Equilibrium," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 63(4), pages 841-90, July.
  18. Damien J. Neven, 2006. "Competition economics and antitrust in Europe," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 21(48), pages 741-791, October.
  19. Epstein, Roy J. & Rubinfeld, Daniel, 2001. "Merger Simulation: A Simplified Approach with New Applications," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt1c65s24r, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  20. Wolfgang Kerber & Jürgen-Peter Kretschmer & Georg von Wangenheim, 2008. "Optimal Sequential Investigation Rules in Competition Law," MAGKS Papers on Economics 200816, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
  21. Ivaldi, Marc & Verboven, Frank, 2005. "Quantifying the effects from horizontal mergers: Comments on the underlying assumptions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 699-702, December.
  22. Ivaldi, Marc & Verboven, Frank, 2001. "Quantifying the Effects from Horizontal Mergers in European Competition Policy," CEPR Discussion Papers 2697, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  23. Lance Brannman & Luke M. Froeb, 2000. "Mergers, Cartels, Set-Asides, and Bidding Preferences in Asymmetric Oral Auctions," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(2), pages 283-290, May.
  24. David S. Evans & Albert L. Nichols & Richard Schmalensee, 2005. "U.S. v. Microsoft: Did Consumers Win?," NBER Working Papers 11727, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  25. Barry Nalebuff, 2002. "Bundling and the GE-Honeywell Merger," Yale School of Management Working Papers ysm303, Yale School of Management.
  26. Michael J. Mandel, 1999. "Going for the Gold: Economists as Expert Witnesses," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 13(2), pages 113-120, Spring.
  27. D. McFadden & J. Hausman, 1981. "Specification Tests for the Multinominal Logit Model," Working papers 292, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
  28. Hausman, Jerry A. & Leonard, Gregory K., 2005. "Using merger simulation models: Testing the underlying assumptions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 693-698, December.
  29. Epstein, Roy J. & Rubinfeld, Daniel L., 2001. "Merger Simulation: A Simplified Approach with New Applications," Department of Economics, Working Paper Series qt9jt389nb, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  30. Orley Ashenfelter & Daniel Hosken, 2008. "The Effect of Mergers on Consumer Prices: Evidence from Five Selected Case Studies," NBER Working Papers 13859, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  31. Lars Peter Hansen & James J. Heckman, 1996. "The Empirical Foundations of Calibration," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 10(1), pages 87-104, Winter.
  32. Aviv Nevo, 2000. "Mergers with Differentiated Products: The Case of the Ready-to-Eat Cereal Industry," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(3), pages 395-421, Autumn.
  33. Daniel Kahneman, 2003. "A Psychological Perspective on Economics," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 162-168, May.
  34. Steven Tschantz & Philip Crooke & Luke Froeb, 2000. "Mergers in Sealed versus Oral Auctions," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 201-212.
  35. Gregory Werden, 2000. "Expert Report in United States v. Interstate Bakeries Corp. and Continental Baking Co," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 7(2), pages 139-148.
  36. repec:reg:rpubli:109 is not listed on IDEAS
  37. Peters, Craig, 2006. "Evaluating the Performance of Merger Simulation: Evidence from the U.S. Airline Industry," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 49(2), pages 627-49, October.
  38. Werden, Gregory J & Froeb, Luke M, 1994. "The Effects of Mergers in Differentiated Products Industries: Logit Demand and Merger Policy," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(2), pages 407-26, October.
  39. Rubinfeld, Daniel L. & Epstein, Roy J., 2001. "Merger Simulation: A Simplified Approach with New Applications," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt2sq9s8c8, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  40. Baker, Jonathan B & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1999. "Empirical Methods in Antitrust Litigation: Review and Critique," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 1(1-2), pages 386-435, Fall.
  41. Roy J. Epstein & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, 2002. "Merger Simulation: A Simplified Approach with New Applications," Industrial Organization 0201002, EconWPA.
  42. Arndt Christiansen and Wolfgang Kerber & Wolfgang Kerber, 2006. "Competition Policy with Optimally Differentiated Rules Instead of "Per se Rules vs. Rule of Reason"," Marburg Working Papers on Economics 200606, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sdk:wpaper:82. 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: (Ulla H. Oehlenschläger)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.