Exclusive dealing, entry, and mergers
We extend the literature on exclusive dealing by allowing the incumbent and the potential entrant to merge. This uncovers new effects. First, exclusive deals can be used to improve the incumbent’s bargaining position in the merger negotiation. Second, the incumbent finds it easier to elicit the buyer’s acceptance than in the case where entry can occur only by installing new capacity. Third, exclusive dealing reduces welfare because (i) it may trigger entry through merger whereas de-novo entry would be socially optimal (ii) it may deter entry altogether. Finally, we show that when exclusive deals include a commitment to future prices, they will increase welfare.
|Date of creation:||01 Jan 2006|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: I-80126 Napoli|
Phone: +39 081 - 675372
Fax: +39 081 - 675372
Web page: http://www.csef.it/
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.:
- B. Douglas Bernheim & Michael D. Whinston, 1998.
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(1), pages 64-103, February.
- B. Douglas Bernheim & Michael D. Whinston, "undated". "Exclusive Dealing," Working Papers 96008, Stanford University, Department of Economics.
- B. Douglas Bernheim & Michael D. Whinston, 1996. "Exclusive Dealing," NBER Working Papers 5666, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Bernheim, B.D., 1992. "Exclusive Dealing," Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers 1622, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Motta,Massimo, 2004. "Competition Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521016919, December.
- Motta,Massimo, 2004. "Competition Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521816632.
- Persson, Lars, 2004. "Predation and mergers: Is merger law counterproductive?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(2), pages 239-258, April.
- Persson, Lars, 1999. "Predation and Mergers: Is Merger Law Counterproductive?," Working Paper Series 516, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
- Persson, Lars, 2001. "Predation and Mergers: Is Merger Law Counterproductive?," CEPR Discussion Papers 2734, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Rasmusen, Eric B & Ramseyer, J Mark & Wiley, John S, Jr, 1991. "Naked Exclusion," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1137-1145, December.
- Yamey, B S, 1972. "Predatory Price Cutting: Notes and Comments," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(1), pages 129-142, April.
- Michael D. Whinston, 2001. "Exclusivity and Tying in U.S. v. Microsoft: What We Know, and Don't Know," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 63-80, Spring.
- Farrell, Joseph, 2005. "Deconstructing Chicago on Exclusive Dealing," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt9wv3k43c, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Joseph Farrell, 2005. "Deconstructing Chicago on Exclusive Dealing," Industrial Organization 0504017, EconWPA.
- Aghion, Philippe & Bolton, Patrick, 1987. "Contracts as a Barrier to Entry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 77(3), pages 388-401, June.
- Michael D. Whinston & Ilya R. Segal, 2000. "Naked Exclusion: Comment," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(1), pages 296-309, March. Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sef:csefwp:153. 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: (Lia Ambrosio)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.