Market definition and market power assessment are two fundamental steps carried out by competition authorities - and later on reviewed by courts - whenever dealing with alleged breaches of competition law by undertakings. They are, however, mostly centered in selling side cases. This paper puts forward that a mere reverse of the standard methodologies employed for selling side cases are insufficient for the application in buyer side cases. Thus, it is necessary re-assessing the current techniques and their application to be applied to buyer power cases. I submit that in all buyer power cases the market definition ought to be made in both the upstream market and downstream market by adopting a dualistic market definition in buyer power cases. Particular attention ought to be paid to the circumstance of whether the undertaking has market power in the downstream market as this will directly affect whether the conduct is anticompetitive or not. Lastly, this dualistic definition is justified as it fully captures the competitive effects of monopsony or bargaining power and allows for a proper appreciation of buyer power's welfare effects from a consumer's perspective.
The thesis presents a comprehensive and cross-sectional discussion of buyer power to determine the legal regulation of buyer conducts under EU competition law. It focuses on four main research areas: understanding buyer power; analysing the legal treatment given to the exertion of anticompetitive buyer power under EU competition law; exploring theories of harm applicable to buyer power abuse, and ascertaining the welfare standard employed for buyer power cases.
This book provides a comprehensive overview of the economic and competition policy issues that buyer power creates. Drawing on economic analysis and cases from around the world, it explains why conventional seller side standards and analyses do not provide an adequate framework for responding to the problems that buyer power can create. Based on evidence that abuse of buyer power is a serious problem for the competitive process, the book evaluates the potential for competition law to deal directly with the problems of abuse either through conventional competition law or special rules aimed at abusive conduct. The author also examines controls over buying groups and mergers as potentially more useful responses to risks created by undue buyer power.
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.
In recent decades, the development of very large buyers in previously more fragmented industries makes buyer power a recurrent issue in competition law cases. Buyer power can simultaneously be a boon and a menace for markets and competition. It may provide a countervailing force to enhanced seller power, and unless it leads to successive power, it can lead to lower prices in the downstream market. However, buyer power may also be socially detrimental, when it is not in the presence of strong seller power. It may undermine the long-term viability of suppliers and their willingness for innovation. Thus, the impact of buyer power in the economy is ambiguous. Analysis of buyer power should be on a case-by-case basis and involve an assessment of the likely distortion in both the upstream and the downstream markets. There should be no presumption that buyer power per se is infringing competition law.This article will focus both on analysing countervailing buyer power and anticompetitive buyer power (or buyer market power). The article will address the issue of market definition and analyse the measures for assessing buyer power. It will also analyse cases involving buyer power under Articles 81 and 82 of the EC Treaty as well as under the European Control Merger Regulation (ECMR). This article has been shortlisted for the 1st World Competition Young Writer Award.
Market definition and market power are central features of competition law and practice but pose serious challenges. On one hand, market definition suffers decisive logical infirmities that render it infeasible, unnecessary, and counterproductive, and the practice of stating market power requirements as market share threshold tests is incoherent as a matter of empirics and policy. On the other hand, market power is often probative of the desirability of liability, yet the typically assumed functional relationship is unexplored and often implausible. These latter deficiencies are addressed through a ground-up analysis of the channels by which market power can be relevant. It is important to explicitly and simultaneously consider both anticompetitive and procompetitive explanations for challenged practices and to attend to the magnitudes of the social consequences of correct and mistaken imposition of liability in order to identify the various ways and senses in which market power bears on optimal decision-making.
This is the first book to provide a systematic treatment of the economics of antitrust (or competition policy) in a global context. It draws on the literature of industrial organisation and on original analyses to deal with such important issues as cartels, joint-ventures, mergers, vertical contracts, predatory pricing, exclusionary practices, and price discrimination, and to formulate policy implications on these issues. The interaction between theory and practice is one of the main features of the book, which contains frequent references to competition policy cases and a few fully developed case studies. The treatment is written to appeal to practitioners and students, to lawyers and economists. It is not only a textbook in economics for first year graduate or advanced undergraduate courses, but also a book for all those who wish to understand competition issues in a clear and rigorous way. Exercises and some solved problems are provided.
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.
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.
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.
