IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwpio/0504017.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Deconstructing Chicago on Exclusive Dealing

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph Farrell

    (Department of Economics, University of California at Berkeley)

Abstract

While exclusive dealing can be efficient, the Chicago School has also argued that it cannot be anticompetitive, or that it seldom is. That argument takes two forms; both are weak. First, a pricetheory argument (“the Chicago Three-Party Argument”) depends crucially on a special model of oligopoly and predicts that we will never see what we see. I show how simply replacing the embedded oligopoly model suggests new efficiency and anticompetitive motives for exclusive dealing; these motives differ markedly from those usually discussed. Second, “the Chicago Vertical Question” is a challenge to theories of anticompetitive vertical practices, including exclusive dealing. While that Question is salutary and helpful, its apparent force dissipates if we pay careful attention to externalities, as others have noted, and to the issue of alternatives versus benchmarks, as I describe below. Overall, economic logic does not support any general presumption that exclusive dealing is efficient.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph Farrell, 2005. "Deconstructing Chicago on Exclusive Dealing," Industrial Organization 0504017, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwpio:0504017
    Note: Type of Document - pdf; pages: 15
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/io/papers/0504/0504017.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Motta, Massimo & Persson, Lars & Fumagalli, Chiara, 2005. "Exclusive Dealing, Entry and Mergers," CEPR Discussion Papers 4902, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. 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.
    3. Chiara Fumagalli & Massimo Motta & Lars Persson, 2009. "On The Anticompetitive Effect Of Exclusive Dealing When Entry By Merger Is Possible," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 785-811, December.
    4. Kitamura, Hiroshi & Matsushima, Noriaki & Sato, Misato, 2017. "Exclusive contracts and bargaining power," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 1-3.
    5. Hiroshi Kitamura & Noriaki Matsushima & Misato Sato, 2018. "Naked exclusion under exclusive-offer competition," ISER Discussion Paper 1021, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    6. Gavin, Sebnem & Ross, Thomas W., 2018. "Long-term contracts as barriers to entry with differentiated products," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 514-537.
    7. Kitamura, Hiroshi & Matsushima, Noriaki & Sato, Misato, 2018. "Exclusive contracts with complementary inputs," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 145-167.
    8. Hiroshi Kitamura & Noriaki Matsushima & Misato Sato, 2023. "Which is better for durable goods producers, exclusive or open supply chain?," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(1), pages 158-176, January.
    9. Hiroshi Kitamura & Noriaki Matsushima & Misato Sato, 2021. "Lease or sale: When a durable goods monopolist can choose supply chain's openness," ISER Discussion Paper 1127, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.
    10. Dongyeol Lee, 2015. "The Competitive Effect of Exclusive Dealing in the Presence of Renegotiation Breakdown," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(1), pages 25-50, August.
    11. Hiroshi Kitamura & Noriaki Matsushima & Misato Sato, 2021. "Defending home against giants: Exclusive dealing as a survival strategy for local firms," ISER Discussion Paper 1122, Institute of Social and Economic Research, Osaka University.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Exclusive dealing; vertical restraints; monopoly; antitrust;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L - Industrial Organization

    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:wpa:wuwpio:0504017. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: EconWPA (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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.