Upstream Competition between Vertically Integrated Firms

We propose a model of two‐tier competition between vertically integrated firms and unintegrated downstream firms. We show that, even when integrated firms compete in prices to offer a homogeneous input, the Bertrand logic may collapse, and the input may be priced above marginal cost in equilibrium. These partial foreclosure equilibria are more likely to exist when downstream competition is fierce or when unintegrated downstream competitors are relatively inefficient. We discuss the impact of several regulatory tools on the competitiveness of the wholesale market.     

DESIGNING A MARKET STRUCTURE WHEN FIRMS COMPETE FOR THE RIGHT TO SERVE THE MARKET*

In many industries, a regulator designs an auction to select ex‐ante the firms that compete ex‐post on the product market. This paper considers the optimal market structure when firms incur sunk costs before entering the market and when the government is not able to regulate firms in the market. We prove that a free entry equilibrium results in an excessive entry when the entry costs are private information. Then, we consider an auction mechanism selecting the firms allowed to serve the market and show that the optimal number of licences results in the socially optimal market structure. When all the potential candidates are actual bidders, the optimal number of firms in the market increases with the number of candidates and decreases with the social cost of public funds. When the market size is small, as the net profit in the market decreases with the number of selected firms, entry is endogenous. As increasing competition in the market reduces competition for the market, the optimal structure is more concentrated than in the previous case.     

Preemptive mergers under spatial competition

Mergers for market power generally benefit outsider firms more than participating firms. Hence, outsiders should welcome such mergers between their competitors but, frequently, this is not the case. Under spatial competition some outsiders gain more than the participating firms but others might benefit less. Thus, if the number of admissible mergers is limited, firms may decide to merge to preempt rival mergers. This paper studies the incentives for preemptive merger by firms engaged in spatial competition.     

Competing buyers,rent extraction and inefficient exclusion

The article illustrates how a seller profitably can prevent entry of a potential competitor, even when entry would increase industry profit. Entry is prevented by offering exclusive contracts to the buyers. The buyers are assumed to be differentiated firms, competing in a downstream market. Exclusion occurs in equilibrium as long as there is some degree of competition among the downstream firms, and even when there are no economies of scale in upstream production.     

Cournot Oligopoly Conditions under which Any Horizontal Merger Is Profitable

Findings in economic theory suggest that horizontalmergers involving firms with aggregate market shareless than 50% are unlikely to be motivated by theconsequent reduction in competitivity. The resultsarise because, absent cost efficiencies, quantity-settingfirms in small mergers are impoverished by the merger.We demonstrate that this conclusion is a consequence ofthe strong restrictions imposed on the demand function,and we identify a well-behaved demand function suchthat any set of merging firms benefits from the reductionin competition even when there are no cost efficiencies.     

Hold-up of anti-competitive mergers

We construct a model of endogenous mergers and study some issues of whether and how to control mergers, taking into account firms equilibrium response to policy. Anti-competitive mergers benefit competitors more than the merging firms. We show how such free-riding reduces firms incentives to merge (holdup). Firms delay merger proposals, hoping other firms will merge instead. The final result, however, is an overly concentrated market. Merger control may thus preserve competitive markets. In the presence of holdup, even reasonable policies such as requiring divestiture or using cost-benefit analysis, may be worse than not controlling mergers at all.     

MARKET PERFORMANCE WITH MULTIPRODUCT FIRMS*

We revisit the fundamental issue of market provision of variety associated with Chamberlin, Spence, and Dixit‐Stiglitz when firms sell multiple products. Both products and firms are (horizontally) differentiated. We propose a general nested demand framework where consumers first decide upon a firm then which variant to buy and how much (the nested CES is a special case). We use it to determine the market's biases when firms compete in product ranges and prices. The market system attracts too many firms with too few products per firm: firms restrain product ranges to relax price competition, but this exacerbates over‐entry.     

Mergers that harm competitors

Standard models of oligopolistic interdependence predict that firms remaining outside of a horizontal merger will benefit from it. Why, then, do nonparticipating firms feel threatened by mergers? This paper shows that under reasonable conditions a non-participating firm is harmed by a merger. The analysis is based on a spatial equilibrium with suppliers and demanders located at fixed points. Mergers harm non-participating firms as a result of the decrease in the level of marginal costs of the merged firm attributable to decreased output in markets where competition is eliminated. This lowered marginal cost makes the merged firm a more formidable competitor in markets in which outsiders participate. This effect is in almost all cases sufficient to make outsiders worse off after a merger. Simulations on a sample of spatial equilibria show that the harm to outsiders is a reliable index of the harm that the merger causes to social welfare.     

Bertrand Competition with an Asymmetric No‐discrimination Constraint

Regulators and competition authorities often prevent firms with significant market power, or dominant firms, from practicing price discrimination. The goal of such an asymmetric no‐discrimination constraint is to encourage entry and serve consumers' interests. This constraint prohibits the firm with significant market power from practicing both behaviour‐based price discrimination within the competitive segment and third‐degree price discrimination across the monopolistic and competitive segments. We find that this constraint hinders entry and reduces welfare when the monopolistic segment is small.     

Analytical Screens for Electricity Mergers

Electricity mergers pose distinct challenges for competition policy. Electricity demand is highly inelastic in the short run, storage is limited, and transmission constraints limit the ability to substitute generation at other locations. As a result, a merger can affect prices in many different markets and even generators with small market shares may be able to exercise market power. The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s approach for screening horizontal mergers, based on the concentration thresholds in the Department of Justice/Federal Trade Commission Horizontal Merger Guidelines, can fail to identify mergers that lessen competition, and mergers that fail the FERC screen may have no significant anticompetitive effect. We propose competitive residual demand (CRD) analysis, which examines the supply curves of the markets affected by a merger and considers the ability and incentive of firms to raise prices before and after a proposed merger. CRD analysis is a relatively easy way to address the incentives for generators to exercise market power and relies on data that are often available. Vertical (convergent) mergers between electricity and gas raise additional concerns, and we propose a methodology to screen vertical mergers.     

Capabilities,technologies, and firm exit during industry shakeout: Evidence from the global solar photovoltaic industry

Research Summary: Explanations of entrants’ survival in an emerging industry are premised on pre‐entry capabilities or technology entry choices prior to the emergence of the dominant design. We consider how these drivers interact to strengthen or nullify firms’ pre‐entry advantage, and facilitate adaptation as the industry evolves. We also expand the treatment of exit by separating dissolution from acquisition, in which firms’ capabilities continue to be utilized in the industry. Studying a recent shakeout in the global solar photovoltaic industry, we find that pre‐entry capabilities and technology choices act in a complementary manner for some firms, thereby enhancing survival, and as buffers against exit for others. Nearly half of exits were via acquisitions, and technology choice at entry played an important role in determining how firms exited. Managerial Summary: New industries are often characterized by intense technology competition that culminates in a dominant technology followed by industry shakeout. Although prior research underscores the central role of technology choice and firm capabilities to survival, we do not actually know how firms with different capabilities and who have made competing technology choices survive an industry shakeout. In this article, we show how entrants’ capabilities and technology choices can act in a complementary manner for some firms, enhancing their chance of survival, and as buffers against failure for others. Moreover, we explain why some firms that do exit are acquired, when others are dissolved.     

Endogenous Mergers of Complements with Mixed Bundling

This paper studies endogenous mergers of complements with mixed bundling, by allowing both for joint and separate consumption. After merger, partner firms decrease the price of the bundled system. In addition, when markets for individual components are sufficiently important, partner firms find it strategically advantageous to raise the prices of stand-alone products, thus making substitute ‘mix-and-match’ composite products less attractive to consumers. Even though these effects favor the profitability of mergers, merging is not always an equilibrium outcome. The reason is that outsiders respond by cutting their prices to retain their market share, and mergers can be unprofitable when competition is intense. From a welfare analysis, we observe that the number of mergers that are observed in equilibrium may be either excessive (when markets for individual components are important) or suboptimal (when markets for individual components are less important).     

LARGE IS BEAUTIFUL: HORIZONTAL MERGERS FOR BETTER EXPLOITATION OF PRODUCTION SHOCKS*

The profitability of horizontal mergers is investigated in a situation in which firms face a production shock and therefore are uncertain about their future costs. I show that, due to production rationalization, small‐scale mergers can be profitable if the uncertainty is large. The efficiency gain in production also implies benign welfare consequences. Under cost uncertainty, a profitable merger always improves social welfare if no more than half of the industry's firms are allowed to merge. Finally, I show that the incentives to merge depend on the information structure. Firms are less likely to merge when they possess more information.     

Technology of upstream firms and equilibrium product differentiation

Using a Hotelling-type product differentiation model (linear city model), we investigate the location strategies of upstream and downstream firms. We show that when transport costs of upstream firms are large, higher transport costs decrease the level of product differentiation of downstream firms. We also show that more inefficient transport technologies of upstream firms may enhance welfare. We briefly discuss vertical mergers and show that vertical mergers occur if the transport costs of upstream firms are large enough.     

Market size and competition: A “hump-shaped” result

An active empirical literature estimates entry threshold ratios (ETRs), introduced by Bresnahan and Reiss (1991), to learn about the impact of firm entry on competition. We show that in the standard homogeneous goods oligopoly model, there is no monotonic relationship with the price-cost margin, one measure for the strength of competition. Regardless of the shape of demand, the ETR is hump-shaped in the number of active firms. It can also increase with entry in the Salop model of product differentiation or in a game of repeated interactions where collusion is possible. Empirical applications should use caution and only interpret changes in the ratio as indicative of a change in competition when the number of firms is sufficiently large.     

Spatial Price Discrimination with Heterogeneous Firms

In this paper we aim to explain intuitively heterogeneous firms’ optimal location decisions in a simple spatial market. To do so, we present and solve a four‐stage game of entry, location, pricing and consumption in a spatial price discrimination framework with arbitrarily many heterogeneous firms. We provide a unique equilibrium outcome without imposing restrictions on the distribution of marginal costs across firms.     

Can collusion promote sustainable consumption and production?

Several competition authorities consider the exemption of horizontal agreements among firms from antitrust liability if the agreements sufficiently promote public interest objectives such as sustainable consumption and production. We show that when consumers value sustainable products and firms choose investments in sustainability before choosing output or prices, coordination of output choices or prices boosts investments in sustainability and may even enhance consumer surplus when products are sufficiently close substitutes and the marginal cost of investment in sustainability is relatively low. By contrast, coordination of investments in sustainability leads to lower investments and harms consumers.     

Assessing the effects of mergers and acquisitions on firm performance,plant productivity,and workers: newl evidence from matched employer‐employee data

Empirical studies of mergers and acquisitions typically focus on firm‐level financial performance. In contrast, we use human capital theory to model these events as transactions that simultaneously have cross‐level, real effects on workers, plants, and firms. Our empirical analysis is based on longitudinal, linked employer‐employee data for virtually all Swedish manufacturing firms and employees. We find that mergers and acquisitions enhance plant productivity, although they also result in the downsizing of establishments and firms. Firm performance does not decline in the aftermath of these ownership changes. We conclude that such transactions constitute a mechanism for improving the sorting and matching of plants and workers to more efficient uses. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Entry-Inducing Effects of Horizontal Mergers: An Exploratory Analysis

Antitrust law presumes that entry normally prevents or reverses anticompetitive effects from horizontal mergers. But when sunk costs associated with entry are at levels suggested by prevailing market structure, the opportunity for entry created by an anticompetitive merger plausibly is too small to induce entry, even absent Stiglerian ‘barriers to entry.’ This is illustrated for Cournot and Bertrand models. Significant entry also makes otherwise profitable Bertrand mergers unprofitable, assuming no efficiency gains. Consequently, the entry issue can be collapsed into the efficiency issue: if a presumably profitable merger does not generate significant efficiencies, it cannot be expected to induce entry.     

Curbing obfuscation: Empower consumers or regulate firms?

This paper develops a market model where consumers refrain from buying products that they are unable to understand and a firm can influence the probability of a consumer understanding its offer. In equilibrium, firms artificially increase product complexity, and firms that offer more transparent products choose on average higher prices. We study two sets of public policies. We show that consumer side policies may have the unintended consequence of encouraging obfuscation while firm side policies are always effective in curbing obfuscation. Interestingly, a consumer side policy can even harm consumers when it protects consumers so much that it greatly increases the marginal effectiveness of obfuscation. Policies on both sides can either increase or decrease social welfare depending on the marginal effectiveness and the marginal cost of obfuscation. Our main insights hold in both asymmetric and symmetric obfuscation equilibria.