Although there is agreement on the basic economic principles that should apply to monopolization cases, there is no widely accepted paradigm for market definition or the identification of market power in such cases. This contrasts with the SSNIP paradigm of the DOJ-FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines, which has gained wide acceptance in the two decades since its introduction. Moreover, misguided notions of market definition in monopolization cases still fall into a repeat commission of the acirc;not;Scellophane fallacyacirc;not;? of U.S. v. du Pont (1956).To correct this problem, we propose asking the following question in monopolization cases where exclusionary practices are alleged: Would preservation of the allegedly foreclosed competitor or group of competitors have led to a small but significant nontransitory decrease in price (SSNDP) by the defendant? This SSNDP test can help define the relevant market and, more importantly, can allow courts to focus directly on the anticompetitive effects of the defendantacirc;not;quot;s actions and thereby on the exercise of market power.
In Defense of Monopoly offers an unconventional but empirically grounded argument in favor of market monopolies. Authors McKenzie and Lee claim that conventional, static models exaggerate the harm done by real-world monopolies, and they show why some degree of monopoly presence is necessary to maximize the improvement of human welfare over time. Inspired by Joseph Schumpeter's suggestion that market imperfections can drive an economy's long-term progress, In Defense of Monopoly defies conventional assumptions to show readers why an economic system's failure to efficiently allocate its resources is actually a necessary precondition for maximizing the system's long-term performance: the perfectly fluid, competitive economy idealized by most economists is decidedly inferior to one characterized by market entry and exit restrictions or costs. An economy is not a board game in which players compete for a limited number of properties, nor is it much like the kind of blackboard games that economists use to develop their monopoly models. As McKenzie and Lee demonstrate, the creation of goods and services in the real world requires not only competition but the prospect of gains beyond a normal competitive rate of return.
With the rise of digital platforms and the natural tendency of markets involving platforms to become concentrated, competition authorities and courts are more frequently in a position to investigate and decide merger and abuse cases that involve platforms. This report provides guidance on how to define markets and on how to assess market power when dealing with two-sided platforms. DEFINITION Competition authorities and courts are well advised to uniformly use a multi-markets approach when defining markets in the context of two-sided platforms. The multi-markets approach is the more flexible instrument compared to the competing single-market approach that defines a single market for both sides of a platform, as the former naturally accounts for different substitution possibilities by the user groups on the two sides of the platform. While one might think of conditions under which a single-market approach could be feasible, the necessary conditions are so severe that it would only be applicable under rare circumstances. To fully appreciate business activities in platform markets from a competition law point of view, and to do justice to competition law’s purpose, which is to protect consumer welfare, the legal concept of a “market” should not be interpreted as requiring a price to be paid by one party to the other. It is not sufficient to consider the activities on the “unpaid side” of the platform only indirectly by way of including them in the competition law analysis of the “paid side” of the platform. Such an approach would exclude certain activities and ensuing positive or negative effects on consumer welfare altogether from the radar of competition law. Instead, competition practice should recognize straightforwardly that there can be “markets” for products offered free of charge, i.e. without monetary consideration by those who receive the product. ASSESSMENT The application of competition law often requires an assessment of market power. Using market shares as indicators of market power, in addition to all the difficulties in standard markets, raises further issues for two-sided platforms. When calculating revenue shares, the only reasonable option is to use the sum of revenues on all sides of the platform. Then, such shares should not be interpreted as market shares as they are aggregated over two interdependent markets. Large revenue shares appear to be a meaningful indicator of market power if all undertakings under consideration serve the same sides. However, they are often not meaningful if undertakings active in the relevant markets follow different business models. Given potentially strong cross-group external effects, market shares are less apt in the context of two-sided platforms to indicate market power (or the lack of it). Barriers to entry are at the core of persistent market power and, thus, the entrenchment of incumbent platforms. They deserve careful examination by competition authorities. Barriers to entry may arise due to users’ coordination failure in the presence of network effect. On two-sided platforms, users on both sides of the market have to coordinate their expectations. Barriers to entry are more likely to be present if an industry does not attract new users and if it does not undergo major technological change. Switching costs and network effects may go hand in hand: consumer switching costs sometimes depend on the number of platform users and, in this case, barriers to entry from consumer switching costs increase with platform size. Since market power is related to barriers to entry, the absence of entry attempts may be seen as an indication of market power. However, entry threats may arise from firms offering quite different services, as long as they provide a new home for users’ attention and needs.
For the wide range of antitrust cases involving allegations of monopoly or monopolization (or variations on that theme), the presence of market power is a necessary prerequisite for finding liability. In turn, the definition or delineation of a relevant market is essential for measuring a defendant's market share -- a key determinant of the presence or absence of market power. Unfortunately, there are few or no intellectual underpinnings for the market definition process in monopolization cases. This void contrasts sharply with the substantial conceptual developments of the past two decades with respect to the market definition process in antitrust merger analysis, as embodied in the Merger Guidelines of the U.S. Department of Justice.This article contrasts the achievements in the merger analysis area with the continuingdilemmas and conundrums in the monopolization area with respect to market definition. In the latter area the quot;cellophane fallacyquot; (which is explained), combined with the frequently cloudy state of firm levelprofit data, continues to create confusion as to when the presence of competitors is an indication of the absence of market power and when their presence is the consequence of the exercise of market power. Underlying this confusion is the absence of a clear market definition paradigm for these monopolization cases. Until such a paradigm is developed, the confusion will persist, as will a patternof erratic and inconsistent outcomes in alleged monopolization cases.
The innovative contributions of the Italian Marginalists - Pareto, Pantaleoni, De Viti de Marco and Barone, to economic theory have previously been overlooked. This is the first book to deal with the history of the theory of market power and of its relation with competition, focusing on the distinct intellectual tradition that is Italian Marginalist economic thought. Monopoly Power and Competition is a vital resource for historians of economic thought, as it explores a relatively untouched area of microeconomics that sheds light on the theories surrounding monopoly power and barriers to entry.
The most important book on antitrust ever written. It shows how antitrust suits adversely affect the consumer by encouraging a costly form of protection for inefficient and uncompetitive small businesses.
The question of market definition for monopolization cases - and thus the issue of the possession of market power by the defendant - is crucial for the outcome of these cases. However, unlike antitrust merger analysis, where the DOJ-FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines has provided a successful paradigm for market definition, monopolization cases lack a guiding market definition paradigm. This chapter addresses this issue, shows the problems that arise when a market definition paradigm is absent, and offers some partial remedies. The best remedy, though, would be the development of a suitable market definition paradigm for these cases.
In Defense of Monopoly offers an unconventional but empirically grounded argument in favor of market monopolies. Authors McKenzie and Lee claim that conventional, static models exaggerate the harm done by real-world monopolies, and they show why some degree of monopoly presence is necessary to maximize the improvement of human welfare over time. Inspired by Joseph Schumpeter's suggestion that market imperfections can drive an economy's long-term progress, In Defense of Monopoly defies conventional assumptions to show readers why an economic system's failure to efficiently allocate its resources is actually a necessary precondition for maximizing the system's long-term performance: the perfectly fluid, competitive economy idealized by most economists is decidedly inferior to one characterized by market entry and exit restrictions or costs. An economy is not a board game in which players compete for a limited number of properties, nor is it much like the kind of blackboard games that economists use to develop their monopoly models. As McKenzie and Lee demonstrate, the creation of goods and services in the real world requires not only competition but the prospect of gains beyond a normal competitive rate of return.
This paper distills and organizes facts about cartels from about 20 European Commission decisions over 2000-2004. It describes the properties of a collusive outcome in terms of the setting of price and a market allocation, monitoring of agreements with respect to price but more importantly sales, punishment methods for enforcing an agreement and also the use of buy-backs to compensate cartel members, methods for responding to external disruptions from non-cartel suppliers and handling over-zealous sales representatives, and operational procedures in terms of the frequency of meetings and the cartel's organizational structure.
