IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wpa/wuwple/0401003.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The American Airlines Case: A Chance to Clarify Predation Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Aaron S. Edlin

    (University of California, Berkeley & NBER)

  • Joseph Farrell

    (University of California, Berkeley)

Abstract

Predation occurs when a firm offers consumers favorable deals, usually in the short run, that get rid of competition and thereby harm consumers in the long run. Modern economic theory has shown how commitment or collective-action problems among consumers can lead to such paradoxical effects. But the paradox does signal danger. Too hawkish a policy might ban favorable deals that are not predatory. It would be ironic indeed if the standards for predatory pricing liability were so low that antitrust suits themselves became a tool for keeping prices high. Predation policy must therefore diagnose the unusual cases where favorable deals harm competition. To this end, courts and commentators have largely defined predation as sacrifice followed, at least plausibly, by recoupment at consumers' expense. The American Airlines case raises difficult questions about this approach.

Suggested Citation

  • Aaron S. Edlin & Joseph Farrell, 2004. "The American Airlines Case: A Chance to Clarify Predation Policy," Law and Economics 0401003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:wpa:wuwple:0401003
    Note: 38 pages, Acrobat .pdf
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de/econ-wp/le/papers/0401/0401003.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Farrell, Joseph & Katz, Michael, 2001. "Competition or Predation? Schumpeterian Rivalry in Network Markets," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt6hs0v0pc, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
    2. Severin Borenstein, 1992. "The Evolution of U.S. Airline Competition," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 6(2), pages 45-73, Spring.
    3. Joseph Farrell & Michael L. Katz, 2000. "Innovation, Rent Extraction, and Integration in Systems Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 413-432, December.
    4. Baumol, William J, 1996. "Predation and the Logic of the Average Variable Cost Test," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(1), pages 49-72, April.
    5. Klevorick, Alvin K, 1993. "The Current State of the Law and Economics of Predatory Pricing," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 162-167, May.
    6. Farrell, Joseph & Katz, Michael L, 2000. "Innovation, Rent Extraction, and Integration in Systems Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 48(4), pages 413-432, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Sayed Ajaz Hussain & Serkan Bahceci, 2008. "Network Structure and Design in the Deregulated U.S. Airline Industry: an Argument for Re-Regulation?," Working Papers tecipa-325, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
    2. Granero, Lluís M. & Ordóñez-de-Haro, José M., 2015. "Entry under uncertainty: Limit and most-favored-customer pricing," Mathematical Social Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 1-11.
    3. David Besanko & Ulrich Doraszelski & Yaroslav Kryukov, "undated". "The Economics of Predation: What Drives Pricing When There is Learning-by-Doing?," GSIA Working Papers 2011-E8, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
    4. Besanko, David & Doraszelski, Ulrich & Kryukov, Yaroslav, 2020. "Sacrifice tests for predation in a dynamic pricing model: Ordover and Willig (1981) and Cabral and Riordan (1997) meet Ericson and Pakes (1995)," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    5. Hugo Ferreira Braga Tadeu & Jersone Tasso Moreira Silva, 2012. "A Theoretical Framework for the Brazilian Airline Competitive Market Environment," Review of Economics & Finance, Better Advances Press, Canada, vol. 2, pages 97-106, May.
    6. Yaroslav Kryukov & Ulrich Doraszelski & David Besanko, "undated". "The economics of predation: What drives pricing when there is learning-by-doing?," GSIA Working Papers 2011-E30, Carnegie Mellon University, Tepper School of Business.
    7. Farrell Joseph & Shapiro Carl, 2010. "Antitrust Evaluation of Horizontal Mergers: An Economic Alternative to Market Definition," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-41, March.
    8. Christopher Gedge & James W. Roberts & Andrew Sweeting, 2014. "A Model of Dynamic Limit Pricing with an Application to the Airline Industry," NBER Working Papers 20293, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Harumi Ito & Darin Lee, 2003. "Incumbent Responses to Lower Cost Entry: Evidence from the U.S. Airline Industry," Working Papers 2003-22, Brown University, Department of Economics.
    10. Besanko, David & Doraszelski, Ulrich & Kryukov, Yaroslav, 2011. "The economics of predation: What drives pricing when there is learning-by-doing?," CEPR Discussion Papers 8708, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    11. Kim, Sung-Hwan, 2009. "Predatory reputation in US airline markets," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 592-604, September.
    12. Stefano Colombo, 2010. "Discriminatory Prices, Predation and Signal-Jamming in a Horizontal Differentiation Model," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 10(2), pages 87-104, June.

    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. Kevin J. Boudreau & Andrei Hagiu, 2009. "Platform Rules: Multi-Sided Platforms as Regulators," Chapters, in: Annabelle Gawer (ed.), Platforms, Markets and Innovation, chapter 7, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. Oliver Budzinski & Katharina Wacker, 2007. "The Prohibition Of The Proposed Springer-Prosiebensat.1 Merger: How Much Economics In German Merger Control?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 281-306.
    3. Vladimir I. Soloviev & Natalia A. Iliina & Marina V. Samoyavcheva, 2009. "Cournot Equilibrium In A Model Of Hardware And Software Manufacturers' Interaction," Annales Universitatis Apulensis Series Oeconomica, Faculty of Sciences, "1 Decembrie 1918" University, Alba Iulia, vol. 1(11), pages 1-4.
    4. Takanori Adachi & Takeshi Ebina, 2014. "Complementing Cournot’s analysis of complements: unidirectional complementarity and mergers," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 111(3), pages 239-261, April.
    5. Joseph Farrell, 2003. "Integration and Independent Innovation on a Network," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(2), pages 420-424, May.
    6. Jens Foerderer & Thomas Kude & Sunil Mithas & Armin Heinzl, 2018. "Does Platform Owner’s Entry Crowd Out Innovation? Evidence from Google Photos," Information Systems Research, INFORMS, vol. 29(2), pages 444-460, June.
    7. Banerji, A. & Dutta, Bhaskar, 2009. "Local network externalities and market segmentation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 605-614, September.
    8. M. Keith Chen & Barry J. Nalebuff, 2006. "One-Way Essential Complements," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1588, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    9. Michael Katz, 2002. "Recent Antitrust Enforcement Actions by the U.S. Department of Justice: A Selective Survey of Economic Issues," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 21(4), pages 373-397, December.
    10. Josh Lerner & Jean Tirole, 2005. "The Economics of Technology Sharing: Open Source and Beyond," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(2), pages 99-120, Spring.
    11. de Bijl, P.W.J. & Peitz, M., 2007. "Innovation, Convergence and the Role of Regulation in the Netherlands," Other publications TiSEM 21cc8b22-82a4-48da-87d0-6, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    12. Sveinn Vidar Gudmundsson, 2011. "Liberalization of Air Transport," Chapters, in: Matthias Finger & Rolf W. Künneke (ed.), International Handbook of Network Industries, chapter 14, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Nishino, Nariaki & Okazaki, Miki & Akai, Kenju, 2018. "Effects of ability difference and strategy imitation on cooperation network formation: A study with game theoretic modeling and multi-agent simulation," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 145-156.
    14. Xing Wan & Javier Cenamor & Geoffrey Parker & Marshall Van Alstyne, 2017. "Unraveling Platform Strategies: A Review from an Organizational Ambidexterity Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    15. Frédéric Marty & Julien Pillot, 2019. "Cooperation, Dependence and Eviction - How Platform-To-Business Relationships in Mobile Telephony Ecosystems Should Be Addressed in A Competition Law Perspective?," CIRANO Working Papers 2019s-01, CIRANO.
    16. Zhijun Chen & Patrick Rey, 2012. "Loss Leading as an Exploitative Practice," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(7), pages 3462-3482, December.
    17. Ferreira, Daniel & Li, Jin & Nikolowa, Radoslawa, 2019. "Corporate Capture of Blockchain Governance," CEPR Discussion Papers 13493, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    18. Christos Genakos & Kai‐Uwe Kühn & John Van Reenen, 2018. "Leveraging Monopoly Power by Degrading Interoperability: Theory and Evidence from Computer Markets," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 85(340), pages 873-902, October.
    19. Rockett, Katharine, 2010. "Property Rights and Invention," 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 315-380, Elsevier.
    20. Feng Zhu & Qihong Liu, 2018. "Competing with complementors: An empirical look at Amazon.com," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(10), pages 2618-2642, October.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K2 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law
    • L4 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies

    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:wuwple:0401003. 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: https://econwpa.ub.uni-muenchen.de .

    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 bibliographic 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.

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