IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ksa/szemle/658.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Árprés és felfaló árazás. Közgazdasági elmélet, bírói, szabályozói gyakorlat
[Price squeezing and predatory pricing. Economic theory and judicial and regulatory practice]

Author

Listed:
  • Valentiny, Pál

Abstract

A cikk a felfaló árazás és az árprés fogalmának, közgazdasági hátterének bemutatására, valamint annak vizsgálatára vállalkozik, hogy ezekre hivatkozással milyen bírói gyakorlat alakult ki, milyen szabályozói beavatkozások történtek. A felfaló árazás és az árprés vizsgálatának kérdése az utóbbi időben többek között azért került előtérbe, mert a hálózatos közszolgáltatások liberalizálása óta eltelt idő alatt világossá vált, hogy sok területen a liberalizáció, a kizárólagos jogok felszámolása önmagában nem elegendő a verseny kívánatos mértékének eléréséhez. A liberalizációt követően az Európai Unióban jogi formát is öltött az a felismerés, hogy a jövőben az ágazati és a versenyszabályozásnak új, a korábbinál egymásra utaltabb és együttműködőbb viszonyát kell kialakítani. A szabályozási változások iránya kettős, egyfelől az ágazati szabályozásban a korábbinál nagyobb hangsúlyt kapnak a versenyszabályozás elvei, másfelől egyes versenyszabályozási kérdésekben - vállalatfelvásárlások, összeolvadások, versenykorlátozások - várhatóan megnő az ágazati szakértők szerepe. A szabályozási reformoknak ugyanakkor közös vonása, hogy a megalapozott szabályozói döntések egyre sokrétűbb elemzést igényelnek, és ezen belül egyre fontosabb szerepet játszanak a közgazdasági elemzések. Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) kód: K21, K23, L51, L97.

Suggested Citation

  • Valentiny, Pál, 2004. "Árprés és felfaló árazás. Közgazdasági elmélet, bírói, szabályozói gyakorlat [Price squeezing and predatory pricing. Economic theory and judicial and regulatory practice]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 24-45.
    • Handle: RePEc:ksa:szemle:658
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.kszemle.hu/tartalom/letoltes.php?id=658
    Download Restriction: Registration and subscription. 3-month embargo period to non-subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lott, Jr. John R., 1999. "Are Predatory Commitments Credible?," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226493558, April.
    2. Kreps, David M. & Wilson, Robert, 1982. "Reputation and imperfect information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 253-279, August.
    3. Sibley, David S. & Weisman, Dennis L., 1998. "Raising rivals' costs: The entry of an upstream monopolist into downstream markets," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 451-470, December.
    4. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1986. "A "Signal-Jamming" Theory of Predation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(3), pages 366-376, Autumn.
    5. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1982. "Predation, reputation, and entry deterrence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 280-312, August.
    6. Baumol, William J, 1996. "Predation and the Logic of the Average Variable Cost Test," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(1), pages 49-72, April.
    7. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 2001. "Competition in Telecommunications," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262621509, April.
    8. McGee, John S, 1980. "Predatory Pricing Revisited," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(2), pages 289-330, October.
    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. Valentiny, Pál & Kiss, Károly Miklós, 2009. "A nélkülözhetetlen eszközök értelmezése és a postai szolgáltatások [The interpretation of essential facilities and the postal services]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(11), pages 1001-1024.
    2. Bara, Zoltán, 2007. "A közgazdasági elemzés szerepe a kiszorító/felfaló árazás vizsgálatában. Az Európa Bíróság France Télécom-ügyben hozott ítéletének hatásai [The role of economic analysis in predatory pricing cases.," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(9), pages 800-820.
    3. Valentiny, Pál, 2019. "Közgazdaságtan a jogalkalmazásban [Forensic economics]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(2), pages 134-162.
    4. Erdélyi, Márk, 2006. "Felfaló árazás. Árazás a versenytárs megsemmisítésére [Predatory prices. Pricing designed to annihilate competitors]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(4), pages 365-379.

    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. William Comanor & H. Frech, 2015. "Economic Rationality and the Areeda–Turner Rule," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 46(3), pages 253-268, May.
    2. Yutian Chen & Wei Tan, 2012. "A Theory on Predatory Advertising After a Demand-Reducing Shock," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 38(4), pages 460-478.
    3. Fiona Scott Morton, 1997. "Entry and Predation: British Shipping Cartels 1879–1929," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 6(4), pages 679-724, December.
    4. Hui Chen & Bjorn N. Jorgensen, 2018. "Market Exit Through Divestment—The Effect of Accounting Bias on Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 164-177, January.
    5. Argenton, C., 2010. "Predation Under Perfect Information," Other publications TiSEM c64644e5-2aae-4e41-9a47-a, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    6. Fiona Scott Morton, 1996. "Entry and Predation: British Shipping Cartels 1879-1929," NBER Working Papers 5663, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Nicola Giocoli, 2013. "Games judges don't play: predatory pricing and strategic reasoning in US antitrust," Supreme Court Economic Review, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(1), pages 271-330.
    8. Walsh, Patrick Paul & Whelan, Ciara, 1999. "Loss leading and price intervention in multiproduct retailing: welfare outcomes in a second-best world1," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 333-347, September.
    9. Justus Haucap & Jörn Kruse, 2004. "Verdrängungspreise auf Telekommunikationsmärkten?," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 5(3), pages 337-361, August.
    10. Chiara Fumagalli & Massimo Motta, 2013. "A Simple Theory of Predation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(3), pages 595-631.
    11. Besanko, David & Doraszelski, Ulrich & Kryukov, Yaroslav, 2020. "Sacrifice tests for predation in a dynamic pricing model: Ordover and Willig (1981) and Cabral and Riordan (1997) meet Ericson and Pakes (1995)," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    12. Kenneth G. Elzinga & David E. Mills, 2014. "Antitrust Predation and The Antitrust Paradox," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(S3), pages 181-200.
    13. Argenton, Cédric, 2019. "Colluding on excluding," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 194-206.
    14. Dilmé, Francesc, 2019. "Dynamic quality signaling with hidden actions," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 116-136.
    15. Bagwell, Kyle & Wolinsky, Asher, 2002. "Game theory and industrial organization," Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, in: R.J. Aumann & S. Hart (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory with Economic Applications, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 49, pages 1851-1895, Elsevier.
    16. Haltiwanger, John & Waldman, Michael, 1991. "Responders versus Non-responders: A New Perspective on Heterogeneity," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 101(408), pages 1085-1102, September.
    17. Schatzel, Kim & Droge, Cornelia & Calantone, Roger, 2003. "Strategic channel activity preannouncements: An exploratory investigation of antecedent effects," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 56(12), pages 923-933, December.
    18. Butler, Jeffrey V. & Carbone, Enrica & Conzo, Pierluigi & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2020. "Past performance and entry in procurement: An experimental investigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 179-195.
    19. Singhal, Monica, 2008. "Special interest groups and the allocation of public funds," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(3-4), pages 548-564, April.
    20. Sonin, Konstantin & Egorov, Georgy, 2005. "The Killing Game: Reputation and Knowledge in Non-Democratic Succession," CEPR Discussion Papers 5092, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • K23 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Regulated Industries and Administrative Law
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
    • L97 - Industrial Organization - - Industry Studies: Transportation and Utilities - - - Utilities: General

    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:ksa:szemle:658. 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: Odon Sok (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.kszemle.hu .

    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.