On the competitive effects of vertical integration by a research laboratory

An independent research laboratory owns a patented process innovation ready to be used by an industry that produces differentiated goods. We analyze whether the laboratory prefers to license the innovation as an external patentee or to merge with one of the firms in the industry, licensing the innovation as an internal patentee. Under linear demand and Cournot competition, we show first, that the vertical merger is profitable only in the case of small innovations, whereas a merger increases welfare only for significant innovations; second, all profitable vertical mergers reduce welfare. However, some profitable mergers are welfare improving under price competition.     

Ex ante or ex post competition policy? A progress report

When intervening in markets, say to block a merger, competition authorities are constrained by the limited information they have about the social desirability of the available alternatives. Compared to ex ante control, ex post control is based on the more accurate information that becomes available in the intervening period, but entails temporary losses to social welfare and reversal costs incurred to unscramble the eggs. Through a toy model, we identify situations in which the competition authority finds it optimal to commit to forego the option of ex post review in order to avoid chilling ex ante socially beneficial mergers. On the other hand, the case for ex post review is strengthened if post-merger market conducts can signal the merged firm's private information about the consequences of the merger.     

On the desirability of an efficiency defense in merger control

We develop a model in which two firms that have proposed to merge are privately informed about merger-specific efficiencies. This enables the firms to influence the merger control procedure by strategically revealing their information to an antitrust authority. Although the information improves upon the quality of the authority's decision, the influence activities may be detrimental to welfare if information processing/gathering is excessively costly. Whether this is the case depends on the merger control institution and, in particular, whether it involves an efficiency defense. We derive the optimal institution and provide conditions under which an efficiency defense is desirable. We also discuss the implications for antitrust policy and outline a three-step procedure that takes the influence activities into consideration.     

Can no competition policy be better than some competition policy?

This paper examines how the market structure is likely to evolve in a situation of multi-stage oligopolistic production. The decision to merge across or within stages of production is treated as endogenous. It is shown that when firms at a particular stage of production are relatively dominant, simultaneous merger decisions are conducive to competitive vertically integrated outcomes while sequential decisions are not. The persistence of non-integrated market structures may be explained by the existence of equally dominant firms which make merger decisions sequentially. The credible threat of retaliatory merger may deter both socially desirable and undesirable forms of merger. Inferences are drawn for the design of competition policy.     

MERGERS WITH SUPPLY FUNCTIONS

I analyze the equilibrium effects of a merger in an industry when firms compete by submitting supply functions. Under the assumptions that the industry capital stock is fixed and production costs are quadratic and decreasing in capital, I find that any merger results in all firms reducing supply. The decrease in supply by non-participating firms makes any merger profitable. A merger from a symmetric industry lowers welfare.     

On vertical control in monopolistic competition

This paper demonstrates that vertical restraints are profitably imposed by a manufacturer or wholesaler who has some market power and whose product is sold in a monopolistically competitive downstream market. Simple conditions are developed under which a price floor (resale price maintenance) or a price ceiling is profitable, and under which private incentive for a restraint is sufficient for its social desirability. Where demand elasticities are constant, observed vertical price floors are always welfare-improving but profitable price ceilings may decrease welfare. In the special case of the CES-aggregate-surplus specification with competitive conjectures, price ceilings are profitable and welfare-decreasing.     

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.     

Merger Incentives and the Failing Firm Defense

The merger incentives between profitable firms differ fundamentally from the incentives of a profitable firm to merge with a failing firm. We investigate these incentives under different modes of price competition and Cournot behavior. Our main finding is that firms strictly prefer exit of the failing firm to acquisition. This result may imply that other than strategic reasons, like economies of scale, must be looked for to understand why firms make use of the failing firm defense. However, when products are sufficiently heterogenous, we find that (i) the failing firm defense can be welfare enhancing and (ii) a government bail‐out increases total welfare when the number of firms is sufficiently low.     

Horizontal mergers and delegation

This paper shows that the profitability of merger in oligopoly is significantly enhanced if firms delegate the output decision to an agent and then motivate the latter using strategic rent shifting contracts. Two consequences of increased profitability are that the minimum market share that the merging parties require in order to merge profitably without efficiency gains, as well as the maximum market share that the merging parties can possess in order to guarantee that a profitable merger is welfare enhancing, are reduced. A third result is that delegation cannot reduce the set of endogenous mergers.     

Mergers of complements and entry in innovative industries

I study a merger between producers of complement inputs facing potential entry, with investment by the incumbents in deterministic cost reduction and by the entrants in probabilistic innovation, and then competition in prices. The merger solves Cournot complementarity problems in investment and pricing, which is what makes it profitable but also potentially anti-competitive. When the demand is inelastic the merger harms consumers by reducing R&D of the entrants if the incumbents are efficient enough (always when bundling is adopted). Instead, with a demand elastic enough, the merger increases consumer surplus (even with bundling).     

Multiproduct Price Regulation Under Asymmetric Information

We discuss the regulation of a multiproduct monopolist when the firm has private information about cost or demand conditions. The regulator offers the firm a set of prices from which to choose. When there is private information only about costs, the firm should always have a degree of discretion over its pricing policy. When uncertainty concerns demand, whether discretion is desirable depends on how demand elasticities vary with the scale of demands. If a positive demand shock is associated with a reduction in the market elasticity, discretion is good for overall welfare; otherwise it is not.     

Downstream mergers in vertically related markets with capacity constraints

Motivated by a recent merger proposal in the French outdoor advertising market, we develop a model in which firms are initially endowed with some advertising capacities and compete on two fronts. First, firms compete to acquire additional advertising capacities on an upstream market; a first stage modeled as a second-price auction with externalities. Second, those firms, privately informed on their own costs, use their capacities on the downstream market to supply advertisers whose demand is random; a second stage modeled by means of mechanism design techniques. We study the linkages between the equilibrium outcomes on both markets. When a firm is endowed with more initial capacity, through the acquisition of a competitor for instance, whether it becomes more or less eager to acquire extra capacity on the upstream market depends a priori on fine details of the downstream market. Under reasonable choices of functional forms, we demonstrate that a downstream merger does not create any bias in the upstream market towards the already dominant firm.     

ON THE ANTICOMPETITIVE EFFECT OF EXCLUSIVE DEALING WHEN ENTRY BY MERGER IS POSSIBLE*

We extend the literature on exclusive dealing by allowing the incumbent and the potential entrant to merge. This uncovers new effects. First, exclusive dealing can be used to improve the incumbent's bargaining position in the merger negotiation. Second, the incumbent finds it easier to elicit the buyer's acceptance of exclusivity. Third, despite allowing the more efficient technology to find its way into the industry, exclusive dealing reduces welfare because (i) it may trigger entry through merger whereas independent entry would be socially optimal and (ii) it may deter entry altogether.     

The social loss from private monopoly and optimal antitrust enforcement

In this paper we argue that the welfare loss from monopoly equals deadweight loss plus expenditures by monopolists to defend and antitrust enforcers to attack their monopolies. A model of a profit-maximizing monopolist and a social loss-minimizing antitrust enforcer is developed. We find ambiguous effects of deadweight loss and the price of resources used by either party (in maintaining or attacking the monopoly) on the total welfare loss from monopoly. Monopoly profit has a positive but diminishing impact on monopoly welfare loss. Thus the entire monopoly profit will not be transformed into socially useless resource expenditure.     

Efficiencies,market power and horizontal merger

In June 1982 the Justice Department issued itsMerger Guidelines which specify in terms of the Herfindahl index (H) what combinations of merger size and post-merger H are likely to lead to a merger challenge. This paper assesses theseGuidelines using Williamson's (1968) well-known model in which an optimal merger policy is viewed as one that considers both the price and cost consequences of merger. The Williamson model is recast in terms of H and changes in H and linked to theGuidelines. This allows an assessment of the welfare congequences of an industry merger for any given level of concentration and merger-produce changes in concentration. Among the conclusions are that, consistent with theGuidelines, higher values of H make socially successful mergers less likely, and a more appropriate, if perhaps not more feasible, focus for theGuidelines are coordination adjusted measures of concentration and merger size.     

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.     

Market structure and product quality: A study of the 2002 Japanese airline merger

This study examines the economic consequences of a horizontal merger between Japanese airlines that took place in 2002, with particular emphasis on quality responses to the airline merger. A structural model allows firms to determine not only prices but also flight frequencies. The obtained estimates would reject the hypothesis that the merger facilitated coordinated effects. Efficiency gains from the merger are estimated as not trivial, and are more strongly observed in marginal costs per flight, rather than in marginal costs per passenger. Welfare effects of the merger are positive, but vary by market structure. Neglecting endogenous flight frequency overstates the welfare gains, especially for smaller markets. Finally, remedial measures imposed by the authority did little for the merger outcomes.     

Doing well by doing good—case study: ‘Fair & Lovely’ whitening cream

According to the ‘doing well by doing good’ proposition, firms have a corporate social responsibility to achieve some larger social goals, and can do so without a financial sacrifice. This research note empirically examines this proposition by studying in depth the case of ‘Fair & Lovely,’ a skin whitening cream marketed by Unilever in many countries in Asia and Africa, and, in particular, India. Fair & Lovely is indeed doing well; it is a profitable and fast‐growing brand. It is, however, not doing good, and I demonstrate its negative implications for public welfare. I conclude with thoughts on how to reconcile this divergence between private profits and public welfare. Copyright © 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Horizontal mergers with synergies: Cash vs. profit-share auctions

We consider takeover bidding in a Cournot oligopoly when firms have private information concerning the synergy effect of merging with a takeover target and bidders can influence rivals' beliefs through their bids. We compare cash and profit-share auctions, first- and second-price, supplemented by entry fees. Since non-merged firms benefit from a merger if synergies are low, bidders are subject to a positive externality with positive probability; nevertheless, pooling does not occur. Unlike cash auctions, profit-share auctions are not revenue equivalent, and the second-price profit-share auction is more profitable than the other auctions.     

基于兼并成本和协同效应的横向并购研究

进入新世纪后,中国企业的并购活动越来越频繁。本文基于SSR模型,引入兼并成本和协同效应,研究并购厂商的并购动机以及并购行为对社会福利的影响,分析协同效应与兼并成本之间的关系。得出结论:当协同效应使厂商增加的利润大于兼并成本时,并购厂商总是愿意并购;并购后,福利在消费者和非并购厂商之间转移。当协同效应和兼并成本满足一定条件时,横向并购才可以增加社会福利。