IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v20y2024i1-2p60-84..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“Multi-Product Critical Loss: Allowing for Varying Margins, Prices, and Quantities in the Candidate Antitrust Market”

Author

Listed:
  • Shawn W Ulrick
  • Mark D Williams

Abstract

Critical loss analysis is important in defining antitrust product and geographic markets as it directly implements the hypothetical monopolist test. Traditionally, critical loss analysis assumes all products in the candidate market earn the same margin at current prices. In effect, this approach treats all products as a single, representative product. This is technically incorrect. This paper develops the appropriate measures of critical loss assuming products in the candidate markets have different margins, different current prices, and different initial quantities. We also address issues in the implementation of critical loss analysis. This paper is meant to be accessible to the practitioner.

Suggested Citation

  • Shawn W Ulrick & Mark D Williams, 2024. "“Multi-Product Critical Loss: Allowing for Varying Margins, Prices, and Quantities in the Candidate Antitrust Market”," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(1-2), pages 60-84.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:20:y:2024:i:1-2:p:60-84.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhae002
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to 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. Capps, Oral Jr. & Dharmasena, Senarath, 2019. "Enhancing the Teaching of Product Substitutes/Complements: A Pedagogical Note on Diversion Ratios," Applied Economics Teaching Resources (AETR), Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 1(1), June.
    2. Carl Shapiro & Howard Shelanski, 2021. "Judicial Response to the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 58(1), pages 51-79, February.
    3. Coate, Malcolm B. & Ulrick, Shawn W. & Yun, John M., 2021. "Tailoring critical loss to the competitive process," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Farrell Joseph & Shapiro Carl, 2010. "Antitrust Evaluation of Horizontal Mergers: An Economic Alternative to Market Definition," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-41, March.
    5. A. P. Lerner, 1934. "The Concept of Monopoly and the Measurement of Monopoly Power," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 1(3), pages 157-175.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Kadner-Graziano, Alessandro S., 2023. "Mergers of Complements: On the Absence of Consumer Benefits," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C).
    2. Filistrucchi, L. & Gerardin, D. & van Damme, E.E.C. & Keunen, S. & Klein, T.J. & Michielsen, T.O. & Wileur, J., 2010. "Mergers in Two-Sided Markets - A Report to the NMa," Other publications TiSEM f901d1fe-8878-444e-a685-8, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. E. Glen Weyl & Michal Fabinger, 2013. "Pass-Through as an Economic Tool: Principles of Incidence under Imperfect Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 121(3), pages 528-583.
    4. repec:aei:rpaper:1008544122 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Kaplow, Louis, 2021. "Horizontal merger analysis," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    6. Donna, Javier D. & Pereira, Pedro & Trindade, Andre & Yoshida, Renan C., 2020. "Direct-to-Consumer Sales by Manufacturers and Bargaining," MPRA Paper 105773, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Manthos D. Delis & Sotirios Kokas & Steven Ongena, 2016. "Foreign Ownership and Market Power in Banking: Evidence from a World Sample," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 48(2-3), pages 449-483, March.
    8. Roland Kirstein & Matthias Peiss, 2013. "Quantitative Machtkonzepte in der Ökonomik," FEMM Working Papers 130004, Otto-von-Guericke University Magdeburg, Faculty of Economics and Management.
    9. Lukáš Čechura & Tinoush Jamali Jaghdani, 2021. "Market Imperfections within the European Wheat Value Chain: The Case of France and the United Kingdom," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-21, August.
    10. Christopher Conlon & Julie Holland Mortimer, 2021. "Empirical properties of diversion ratios," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(4), pages 693-726, December.
    11. Abdul Latif Alhassan & Nicholas Biekpe, 2017. "Liberalization Outcomes and Competitive Behaviour in an Emerging Insurance Market," African Development Review, African Development Bank, vol. 29(2), pages 122-138, June.
    12. Andrade de Sá, Saraly & Daubanes, Julien, 2016. "Limit pricing and the (in)effectiveness of the carbon tax," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 28-39.
    13. Hernán Vallejo, 2007. "A generalized index of market power," Revista de Economía del Rosario, Universidad del Rosario, December.
    14. Cincera, Michele & Ince, Ela & Santos, Anabela, 2024. "Revisiting the innovation-competition nexus: Evidence from worldwide manufacturing and service industries," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 586-603.
    15. 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.
    16. Hong, Junjie & Shi, Fangyuan & Zheng, Yuhan, 2023. "Does network infrastructure construction reduce energy intensity? Based on the “Broadband China” strategy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 190(C).
    17. Michael Reksulak & William F. Shughart & Robert D. Tollison, 2008. "Innovation and the opportunity cost of monopoly," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(8), pages 619-627.
    18. Fernandes, Ana P. & Ferreira, Priscila & Alan Winters, L., 2014. "Firm entry deregulation, competition and returns to education and skill," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 210-230.
    19. Friberg, Richard & Romahn, André, 2015. "Divestiture requirements as a tool for competition policy: A case from the Swedish beer market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 1-18.
    20. Mourdoukoutas, Fotios & Boonen, Tim J. & Koo, Bonsoo & Pantelous, Athanasios A., 2021. "Pricing in a competitive stochastic insurance market," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 44-56.
    21. Gerald T. Healy III & Jing Ru Tan & Peter F. Orazem, 2020. "Measuring Market Power in Professional Baseball, Basketball, Football, and Hockey," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 65(2), pages 214-231, October.

    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:oup:jcomle:v:20:y:2024:i:1-2:p:60-84.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    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.