IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sef/csefwp/581.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

On the Risk of Using a Firm-Level Approach to Identify Relevant Markets

Author

Listed:

Abstract

In a recent influential paper Coate et al. (2020) have criticized the standard firm-level approach to market definition in merger review. They argue why a market-level approach to critical loss is more appropriate than a firm-level critical loss analysis. Their conclusion is that under certain plausible demand scenarios - i.e., non-linearity of demand functions - a diversion-based firm-level analysis could easily reach the wrong answer on market definition. We extend their analysis by showing that in standard environments used by the most recent theoretical and empirical academic work on merger analysis (namely CES and logit demand functions), a firm level approach actually leads to an excessively narrow market definition as opposed to a market-level approach, thereby increasing the risk of type I errors.

Suggested Citation

  • Timo Autio & Jorge Padilla & Salvatore Piccolo & Pekka Sääskilahti & Lotta Väänänen, 2020. "On the Risk of Using a Firm-Level Approach to Identify Relevant Markets," CSEF Working Papers 581, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy.
    • Handle: RePEc:sef:csefwp:581
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.csef.it/WP/wp581.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Thisse, Jacques-François & Fujita, Masahisa, 2002. "Agglomeration and Market Interaction," CEPR Discussion Papers 3362, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Elhanan Helpman & Paul Krugman, 1987. "Market Structure and Foreign Trade: Increasing Returns, Imperfect Competition, and the International Economy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 026258087x, April.
    3. Masahisa Fujita & Paul Krugman & Anthony J. Venables, 2001. "The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262561476, April.
    4. Michael D. Whinston, 2008. "Lectures on Antitrust Economics," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262731878, April.
    5. Grossman, Gene M & Helpman, Elhanan, 1995. "The Politics of Free-Trade Agreements," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(4), pages 667-690, September.
    6. Volker Nocke & Nicolas Schutz, 2018. "Multiproduct‐Firm Oligopoly: An Aggregative Games Approach," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 86(2), pages 523-557, March.
    7. Christopher Conlon & Julie Holland Mortimer, 2021. "Empirical properties of diversion ratios," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(4), pages 693-726, December.
    8. Simon P. Anderson & Nisvan Erkal & Daniel Piccinin, 2020. "Aggregative games and oligopoly theory: short‐run and long‐run analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(2), pages 470-495, June.
    9. Reiss, Peter C. & Wolak, Frank A., 2007. "Structural Econometric Modeling: Rationales and Examples from Industrial Organization," Handbook of Econometrics, in: J.J. Heckman & E.E. Leamer (ed.), Handbook of Econometrics, edition 1, volume 6, chapter 64, Elsevier.
    10. Marc J. Melitz, 2003. "The Impact of Trade on Intra-Industry Reallocations and Aggregate Industry Productivity," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 71(6), pages 1695-1725, November.
    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. Coate, Malcolm B. & Ulrick, Shawn W. & Yun, John M., 2021. "Tailoring critical loss to the competitive process," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).

    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. Etro, Federico, 2023. "Platform competition with free entry of sellers," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    2. Simon P. Anderson, Nisvan Erkal and, 2009. "Aggregative Oligopoly Games with Entry," Department of Economics - Working Papers Series 1175, The University of Melbourne, revised 2013.
    3. Simon P. Anderson & Nisvan Erkal & Daniel Piccinin, 2020. "Aggregative games and oligopoly theory: short‐run and long‐run analysis," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 51(2), pages 470-495, June.
    4. Stephen J. Redding, 2010. "The Empirics Of New Economic Geography," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 297-311, February.
    5. repec:hal:wpspec:info:hdl:2441/6q707l4svn8k3bt630nhgdqgdu is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Shon M. Ferguson, 2015. "Endogenous Product Differentiation, Market Size and Prices," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(1), pages 45-61, February.
    7. Fugazza, Marco & Robert-Nicoud, Frédéric, 2006. "Can South-South trade Liberalisation Stimulate North-South Trade ?," Journal of Economic Integration, Center for Economic Integration, Sejong University, vol. 21, pages 234-253.
    8. Kojun Hamada & Takao Ohkawa & Makoto Okamura, 2022. "Optimal taxation in a free‐entry Cournot oligopoly: The average cost function approach," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(2), pages 1166-1192, May.
    9. Mathieu, Valentin & Roda, Jean-Marc, 2023. "A meta-analysis on wood trade flow modeling concepts," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    10. Ornelas, Emanuel, 2012. "Preferential trade agreements and the labor market," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 121752, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    11. Keith Head & Thierry Mayer & John Ries, 2000. "On the Pervasiveness of Home Market Effects," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0862, Econometric Society.
    12. Felbermayr, Gabriel & Grossmann, Volker & Kohler, Wilhelm, 2012. "Migration, International Trade and Capital Formation: Cause or Effect?," IZA Discussion Papers 6975, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    13. Sauvé, Pierre & Shingal, Anirudh, 2014. "Why do Countries enter into Preferential Agreements on Trade in Services? Assessing the Potential for Negotiated Regulatory Convergence in Asian Services Markets," Working Papers on Regional Economic Integration 129, Asian Development Bank.
    14. repec:spo:wpmain:info:hdl:2441/6q707l4svn8k3bt630nhgdqgdu is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Sergey Kokovin & Alina Ozhegova & Shamil Sharapudinov & Alexander Tarasov & Philip Ushchev, 2024. "A Theory of Monopolistic Competition with Horizontally Heterogeneous Consumers," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 354-384, May.
    16. Baldwin, Richard & Okubo, Toshihiro, 2006. "Agglomeration, Offshoring and Heterogenous Firms," CEPR Discussion Papers 5663, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    17. Joachim Jarreau & Sandra Poncet, 2009. "Export Sophistication and Economic Performance: Evidence from Chinese Provinces," Working Papers 2009-34, CEPII research center.
    18. Quang Vuong & Ayse Pehlivan, 2015. "Supply Function Competition and Exporters: Nonparametric Identification and Estimation of Productivity Distributions and Marginal Costs," 2015 Meeting Papers 1414, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    19. Artis, Michael & Okubo, Toshihiro, 2008. "The Intranational Business Cycle: Evidence from Japan," CEPR Discussion Papers 6686, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Sato, Susumu, 2021. "Market shares and profits in two-sided markets," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 207(C).
    21. Vanessa Alviarez & Keith Head & Thierry Mayer, 2020. "Global giants and local stars: How changes in brand ownership affect competition," Working Papers 2020-13, CEPII research center.
    22. Andrew B. Bernard & Stephen J. Redding & Peter K. Schott, 2007. "Comparative Advantage and Heterogeneous Firms," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 74(1), pages 31-66.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Critical Loss Analysis; Firm- and Market-level approach; Mergers; Non-linear Demand.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • G34 - Financial Economics - - Corporate Finance and Governance - - - Mergers; Acquisitions; Restructuring; Corporate Governance
    • L4 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies
    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets

    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:sef:csefwp:581. 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.

    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: Dr. Maria Carannante (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cssalit.html .

    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.