IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/jindec/v53y2005i2p175-201.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Failing Firm Defense

Author

Listed:
  • Lars Persson

Abstract

This paper evaluates the welfare consequences of the failing firm defense (FFD) in the EU and U.S. merger laws. To this end, I combine an oligopoly model with an ‘endogenous valuations’ auction model. The FFD is shown to work reasonably well for consumers unless small firms are too small. The FFD may, however, lead to total surplus losses, due to a ‘least danger to competition’ (LDC) condition which favors small, and thus possibly inefficient, firms. It is also shown that, in a multi‐firm setting, the FFD increases the incentive for predation only when the assets are industry‐specific.

Suggested Citation

  • Lars Persson, 2005. "The Failing Firm Defense," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 175-201, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:jindec:v:53:y:2005:i:2:p:175-201
    DOI: 10.1111/j.0022-1821.2005.00251.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-1821.2005.00251.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.0022-1821.2005.00251.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Heidrun C. Hoppe & Philippe Jehiel & Benny Moldovanu, 2006. "License Auctions and Market Structure," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(2), pages 371-396, June.
    2. Dan Kovenock & Suddhasatwa Roy, 2005. "Free Riding in Noncooperative Entry Deterrence with Differentiated Products," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(1), pages 119-137, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Alessandro Fedele & Massimo Tognoni, 2010. "Failing Firm Defence With Entry Deterrence," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 365-386, October.
    2. Michele Bisceglia & Jorge Padilla & Joe Perkins & Salvatore Piccolo, 2024. "Optimal Exit Policy with Uncertain Demand," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 516-547, March.
    3. Patrice Bougette & Florent Venayre, 2008. "Contrôles a priori et a posteriori des concentrations : comment augmenter l'efficacité des politiques de concurrence," Revue d'économie industrielle, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(1), pages 9-40.
    4. Bernard Franck & Nicolas Le Pape, 2020. "The limited liability effect: Implications for anticompetitive horizontal mergers," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 22(6), pages 2082-2102, December.
    5. Jan Bouckaert & Peter M. Kort, 2014. "Merger Incentives and the Failing Firm Defense," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 436-466, September.
    6. Persson, Lars & Norbäck, Pehr-Johan, 2007. "Globalization and Profitability of Cross-border Mergers & Acquisitions," CEPR Discussion Papers 6102, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Beschorner, Patrick Frank Ernst, 2008. "Do Consumers Benefit from Concentration in the New Economy? A Review of Google's Mergers, Acquisitions, and Arrangements," ZEW Discussion Papers 08-121, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Helder Vasconcelos, 2013. "Can the failing firm defence rule be counterproductive?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 65(2), pages 567-593, April.
    9. Mason, Robin & Weeds, Helen, 2013. "Merger policy, entry, and entrepreneurship," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 23-38.
    10. Alessandro Fedele & Massimo Tognoni, 2010. "Failing Firm Defence With Entry Deterrence," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 365-386, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gopal Das Varma & Giuseppe Lopomo, 2010. "Non‐Cooperative Entry Deterrence In License Auctions: Dynamic Versus Sealed Bid," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 450-476, June.
    2. Chatterjee, Rittwik & Chattopadhyay, Srobonti, 2015. "Competition and Auctioning Licenses," MPRA Paper 67086, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. van Damme, E.E.C., 2002. "The Dutch UMTS-auction," Other publications TiSEM e33a97f5-c69b-4c3b-9aca-4, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Kasberger, Bernhard, 2023. "When can auctions maximize post-auction welfare?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    5. Janssen, Maarten C.W. & Karamychev, Vladimir A. & Maasland, Emiel, 2011. "Auctions with flexible entry fees: A note," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 72(2), pages 594-601, June.
    6. David BARTOLINI, 2005. "The Italian Auction for Radio Spectrum Licences," Working Papers 231, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    7. Cumbul, Eray & Virág, Gábor, 2018. "Multilateral limit pricing in price-setting games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 250-273.
    8. Norback, Pehr-Johan & Persson, Lars, 2006. "Endogenous asset ownership structures in deregulated markets," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(7), pages 1729-1752, October.
    9. Sascha Füllbrunn & Tibor Neugebauer, 2007. "An experimental investigation of collusion in hard-close auctions: partners and friends," FEMM Working Papers 07024, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    10. Inderst, Roman & Wey, Christian, 2004. "The incentives for takeover in oligopoly," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(8-9), pages 1067-1089, November.
    11. Condorelli, Daniele, 2013. "Market and non-market mechanisms for the optimal allocation of scarce resources," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 582-591.
    12. Adriaan R. Soetevent & Marco A. Haan & Pim Heijnen, 2014. "Do Auctions and Forced Divestitures Increase Competition? Evidence for Retail Gasoline Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 467-502, September.
    13. Felix Höffler, 2008. "On the consistent use of linear demand systems if not all varieties are available," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(14), pages 1-5.
    14. Börsch-Supan, Axel & Winter, Joachim, 1999. "Pension reform, savings behavior and corporate governance," Papers 99-48, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    15. Hu, Youxin & Kagel, John & Xu, Xiaoshu & Ye, Lixin, 2013. "Theoretical and experimental analysis of auctions with negative externalities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 269-291.
    16. Avenali, Alessandro & D'Alfonso, Tiziana & Leporelli, Claudio & Matteucci, Giorgio & Nastasi, Alberto & Reverberi, Pierfrancesco, 2015. "An incentive pricing mechanism for efficient airport slot allocation in Europe," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 27-36.
    17. Alex Possajennikov, 2004. "Two-Speed Evolution of Strategies and Preferences In Symmetric Games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 227-263, November.
    18. Giorgos Stamatopoulos, 2021. "Bargaining over a license: A counterintuitive result," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 17(4), pages 471-478, December.
    19. Rosato, Antonio, 2008. "“Matching Auctions” for Hostile Takeovers: A Model with Endogenous Target," MPRA Paper 15083, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 07 Jan 2009.
    20. Gary Madden & Erik Bohlin & Thien Tran & Aaron Morey, 2014. "Spectrum Licensing, Policy Instruments and Market Entry," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(3), pages 277-298, May.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:jindec:v:53:y:2005:i:2:p:175-201. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0022-1821 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.