Airport Concentration and Market Power: An Events Study Approach

This paper presents independent confirmation of the results obtained in recent studies that suggest mergers and acquisitions creating airline dominance at the airport level lead to market power. Using a different methodology – an events study for the 1986 merger of Northwest Orient Airlines and Republic Airlines – this paper confirms those results, indicating that concentration in the context of the sunk costs associated with the operation at a particular airport facility allows market power in the airline industry.     

Policy Implications of the Effects of Concentration and Multimarket Contact in China’s Airline Market

Unlike many other mergers in developed countries, which might have been assessed and their effects estimated by antitrust authorities before being granted antitrust immunity, the airline mergers that swept China’s airline industry in 2002 occurred with no antitrust challenge. These mergers provide the opportunity to study important market power issues in China’s airline markets. Given that increased concentration and multimarket contact are the main legacies of an airline merger, the effects of mergers on these variables can raise the potential for the exercise of market power. However, an examination of the period 2002–2004 during which the Chinese airline mergers occurred shows that the resulting increased concentration and enhanced multimarket contact did not have important consequences for airfares in Chinese city-pair markets. The presence of Hainan Airlines appears to have played an important role in suppressing the airfares charged by China Eastern and China Southern.     

Conglomerate mergers and subsequent industry effects

The focus of most studies of conglomerate mergers has been on the effects on companies involved. Of more direct relevance to antitrust policy is the question of industry effects of this type of merger. This article looks at eleven cases of “large firm/leading firm” conglomerate mergers completed between 1958 and 1970 and examines census data to see if structure or performance of the acquired “leading firm's” market was altered due to the merger. The results suggest that industry structure is not significantly affected, but that there may be adverse performance effects when the acquired firm is a leader in an unconcentrated market with substantial entry barriers.     

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.     

EFFICIENCY GAINS AND STRUCTURAL REMEDIES IN MERGER CONTROL*

This paper studies the role of structural remedies in merger control in a Cournot setting where (endogenous) mergers are motivated by prospective efficiency gains and must be submitted to an Antitrust Authority (AA) which might require partial divestiture for approval. From a merger policy perspective, this paper's main contribution is two‐fold. First, it shows that if mergers do not involve all firms in the industry, then merger remedies help the AA to increase consumer surplus only if assets are divested to competitors already in the market. Second, it presents a model which clarifies that there can only exist social costs to ‘over‐fixing’ the anticompetitive effects of a merger if merger review policy treats mergers as one‐time events. When a more dynamic view is taken of sequential merger review, then there can never be an ‘over‐fixing’ problem. In this case, however, remedies are shown to be needed to make myopic merger review optimal.     

Ten years of Merger Guidelines: A retrospective,critique, and prediction

The period since the 1982 Merger Guidelines is surveyed and assessed, including the 1992 Merger Guidelines. The 1982 Guidelines were an improvement in economic underpinnings and in merger policy, but the Guidelines' focus on short run market power is not a sensible basis for merger policy. The 1992 Guidelines continue this focus on short run market power, attempt to provide some clarifications of current enforcement policy, but add some questionable economics to the stew. The merger policy laid out in the 1992 Guidelines will not survive, since it does not suitably come to grips with the fundamental bases of the social costs and benefits of mergers and ignores ‘competitiveness’ issues.     

Estimating Differential Dynamic Merger Effects on Market Structure and Entry in Related Markets

The U.S. and EU merger guidelines emphasize “ease of entry” arguments but little is known about the dynamic impact of realized mergers on market structure. This study provides insights on this topic with the use of detailed firm-level data on the memory chip market. Our estimation results provide evidence for differential merger effects on market structure. These effects depend on whether the mergers are dominated by market-power or efficiency gains. While efficiency-dominated mergers cause exit, market-power-dominated mergers attract entrants, and these effects are increasing over time. We also find that market-power mergers have a larger effect on entry than efficiency mergers have on exit. Our results show that mergers can reduce the number of potential entrants into related product markets and serve as an instrument to “reduce the likelihood of entry”.

     

Exploring the incremental merger value from multimarket and technology arguments

We address the question through which channels mergers create incremental value to merging firms and consider various product market and technological arguments. Based on the pairwise stable allocation concept, we estimate firms’ pair-specific (incremental) merger value functions. Our results show that technological arguments contribute to the majority of added merger value. We also find that market power arguments across multiple markets contribute to explaining incremental post-merger value. In contrast, multimarket strategic effects do not add merger value. Our estimated match values are aligned with the merging firms’ post-merger stock market performance.     

An antitrust analysis of non-profit hospital mergers

This paper considers such issues involved in non-profit hospital mergers as relevant product and geographic markets and the impacts of mergers on competition. The roles of non-price competition, entry barriers, and merger-generated efficiencies are considered. Close attention is given to the relevance of the Justice Department Merger guideline to the hospital industry. Through detailed examination of four litigated or challenged cases, the geographic market is shown to depend upon particular medical services. Outpatient services are found to comprise a separate market from inpatient hospital services, and non-profit status is determined to warrant the usual antitrust merger treatment.     

The 1984 justice department guidelines toward horizontal mergers

This paper examines the treatment of economic efficiency in the 1984 revision of the Department of Justice's antitrust Merger Guidelines. An overview of the evolution of the guidelines toward horizontal mergers is presented emphasizing three key areas where changes have occurred. A model is developed following O. Williamson framework is extended to link changes in market concentration (as measured by the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index) that result from a horizontal merger to changes in market power (as measured by price-cost margins). Finally, the cost reductions (economies) required to offset increases in market power are developed in a simulation model. The paper concludes with an application of the model to the LTV-Republic Steel merger.     

Measuring market shares for the analysis of a consummated merger

This paper asks how market shares should be computed for analysis of a consummated merger. It is argued that pre-merger market shares adjusted for the direct effects of the merger should be used. The actual post merger market shares (which are available only for consummated mergers) should not form the basis of an analysis of the competitive effects of the merger because they may reflect confounding factors, such as entry, exit, or a change in capacity of third-party rivals, unrelated to the merger.     

Merger efficiency gains: Evidence from a large transport merger in france

Many industries are seeing an increase in concentration, leading to a discussion on the effectiveness of horizontal merger enforcement. The policy debate shows that one of the key arguments put forward when supporting potential mergers is the possibility of realization of merger efficiency gains, specifically in the transport industry. Yet, there exists little empirical evidence on the actual effects of realized mergers on cost efficiencies. We exploit a large and highly debated merger that took place in the French transport industry to evaluate whether a merger between two major transport groups may give rise to merger efficiency gains. We exploit the industry setting to employ a difference-in-differences methodology evaluating the effect of the merger on operating costs of merging transport groups. Our results show that, no matter the specification considered, we cannot conclude that the merger resulted in any merger specific efficiency gains for the merging parties. Our study relies on the use of several control groups and is robust to a great number of robustness checks as well as to the introduction of heterogeneous treatment effects, depending on the identity of the merging party, as well as the closeness of competition of local operators. Overall, our study contributes to a growing number of case studies undertaken by economists that can help determine whether horizontal merger policy is being properly enforced.     

Mergers and synergy: Lessons from contemporary telecommunications history

Using contemporary historical data, the analysis reported in this article has evaluated the impact of the various mergers of the local exchange companies that took place between 1988 and 2001 on financial performance. Performance was measured using an important metric normally used to measure synergies of firms undergoing mergers. The analysis has revealed that the relative cash flow variable for firms worsened after mergers. If the synergy motive had been primary in influencing merger decisions, and also approvals, then the past mergers approved led to decreased performance levels and corresponding welfare losses for American consumers; thus, the mergers of communications common carriers were not in the interest of the public, the shareholders and customers. On the other hand, given the negative outcomes, views that the quiet life, hubris or a quest for possible market power motivated the mergers could be discarded. The lessons of such contemporary historical analysis have suggested that antitrust oppositions to contemporary telecommunications sector mergers may have basis in fact and salient evidence.     

Does competition increase quality? Evidence from the US airline industry

This paper studies the impact of competition on quality provision in the US airline industry exploiting a novel source of exogenous variation in competition. While mergers among market incumbents may stifle competition, a merger may increase the probability of entry if the merging airlines were not operating prior to merger in the market but each of them had presence at different route endpoints. We find non-merging incumbent airlines increase their flight frequency upon entry threat and accommodate entry of the newly merged airline by lowering flight frequency upon entry. While non-merging incumbents reduced arrival delays only upon entry of the newly merged airline, we find that incumbents decrease their cancelation rates and departure delays both upon merger announcement and entry of the newly merged airline. Our evidence suggests an increase in competition may increase consumer surplus, because non-merging incumbents increase quality and convenience, while keeping their prices unchanged.     

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.     

The degree of competition in the advertising industry

After a merger wave began among advertising agencies in the late 1960's, the Federal Trade Commission investigated the anticompetitive effects of the mergers and concluded that the industry would remain competitive. In this paper, we employ a method suggested by Bresnahan to investigate the issue of competition in the advertising industry. The method uses industry-level data over the period 1972–87 to consider the determinants of supply and demand for advertising messages and to calculate the degree of market power on the supply side of the market. Statistical results support the hypothesis that the industry was competitive over this period.We thank Robert Coen of McCann-Erickson, Inc., for providing data on advertising costs and expenditures and W. Bradford Todd of the Richards Group for information about the industry. Lacy Glenn Thomas directed us to McCann-Erickson. We also thank James C. Murdoch, two anonymous referees, and the Editor, William G. Shepherd. Pornpong Sumanun provided research assistance. The usual disclaimer applies.     

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.     

A Structural Approach to Market Definition With an Application to the Hospital Industry

Market definition is common in merger analysis, and often the decisive factor in antitrust cases. This has been particularly relevant in the hospital industry, where many merger challenges have been denied due to disagreements over geographic market definition. We compare geographic markets produced using frequently employed ad hoc methodologies to structural methods that directly apply the ‘SSNIP test’ to California hospitals. Our results suggest that markets produced using previous methods overstate hospital demand elasticities by a factor of 2.4 to 3.4 and were likely a contributing factor to the permissive legal environment for hospital mergers.     

Mergers with future rivals can boost prices,bar entry,and intensify market concentration

It is theoretically shown that mergers between incumbents and future rivals can boost prices and harm consumers. But in the absence of empirical evidence, no merger has been litigated on this basis. To offer empirical insights, I study the acquisition case of a promising future rival by a large incumbent pharmaceutical firm. First, there is strong and causal evidence that the merger has enabled higher prices for the incumbent. Mergers with future rivals are practically unregulated and, if wisely exploited, they can circumvent antitrust enforcement and serve as entry barriers. Second, in contrast to the mainstream prediction that mergers with future rivals do not alter market concentration, I report a large post-merger increase in the market concentration. I introduce advertisement expenditure as a possible channel of effect between the merger and market concentration. Third, I document spillover effect of the merger on the incumbent's immediate rivals without affecting its distant rivals.     

Ecological investigation of firm effects in horizontal mergers

Using an ecological lens, we extend strategic management and industrial organization theory to investigate the performance effects of horizontal mergers. We theorize that firms differ in their ability to benefit from horizontal mergers; that the products involved in the merger differ in their ability to attain and sustain any increase in performance above their premerger level; and that resource niches in which each product competes differ in terms of competitive constraints. We then test these predictions using longitudinal data specified at the product–market level, a unit of analysis that is less influenced by aggregation bias than are industry, firm, and even line-of-business level data. Our findings demonstrate how organizational ecology, when coupled with strategic management and industrial organization economic theories, can enrich our understanding of horizontal mergers. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.