IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/uea/ueaccp/2021_11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Competition and Concentration: Charting the Faultlines

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Davies

    (Centre for Competition Policy and School of Economics, University of East Anglia)

Abstract

This work addresses the widespread concern that the forces of competition are weakening worldwide. Much of the evidence for this comes from traditional concentration indices which are notoriously flawed: conceptually they derive from static theory and cannot discriminate between efficiency and market power; empirically, they employ over-aggregate market definitions and ignore international competition. This paper is the first in a programme of research with the objective of resolving some of these problems. The first part of the paper provides a succinct picture of the facts on the HHI index for over 300 UK industries at the 4-digit-level; given data constraints, these refer to producer concentration, ignoring imports and exports. We find that, on average, concentration rose steadily 1998-2011 and remained high thereafter, 2011-2018. About 30% of industries, defined at the 4-digit level, can be classified as “concentrated†or “highly concentrated†using traditional competition authority definitions. In the second part, we provide some indications of how this picture will likely change if we could recompute concentration indices at the more appropriate Anti-Trust Market level and incorporating information on trade competition and exports. High concentration is likely to be even more prevalent at the ATM level, but results might look very different for the sub-set of trade-intensive industries, if we could incorporate trade data into the concentration measures. In the third part, we turn to the major conceptual problem: how to measure competition avoiding the identification problems associated with concentration indices and incorporating a richer dynamic vision of competition as a process. Using an admittedly primitive measure (based on the persistence of leadership rankings within an industry), our early results suggest an increasing tendency for the largest firms to retain their leadership positions over this period. This points to reduced churn in market shares and weakening competition, especially as leadership persistence is found to be more pronounced in more concentrated industries.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Davies, 2022. "Competition and Concentration: Charting the Faultlines," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2021-11, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
  • Handle: RePEc:uea:ueaccp:2021_11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ueaeco.github.io/working-papers/papers/ccp/CCP-21-11.pdf
    File Function: main text
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carl Shapiro, 2019. "Protecting Competition in the American Economy: Merger Control, Tech Titans, Labor Markets," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(3), pages 69-93, Summer.
    2. Demsetz, Harold, 1973. "Industry Structure, Market Rivalry, and Public Policy," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 1-9, April.
    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. Steven Berry & Martin Gaynor & Fiona Scott Morton, 2019. "Do Increasing Markups Matter? Lessons from Empirical Industrial Organization," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 33(3), pages 44-68, Summer.
    2. R. Andrew Butters & Thomas N. Hubbard, 2019. "Industry Structure, Segmentation, and Competition in the U.S. Hotel Industry," NBER Working Papers 26579, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Laurence Kranich & Andrés Perea & Hans Peters, 2005. "Core Concepts For Dynamic Tu Games," International Game Theory Review (IGTR), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 7(01), pages 43-61.
    4. Chang-Yang Lee & Ji-Hwan Lee & Ajai S. Gaur, 2017. "Are large business groups conducive to industry innovation? The moderating role of technological appropriability," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 313-337, June.
    5. Gregor Jarosch & Jan Sebastian Nimczik & Isaac Sorkin, 2024. "Granular Search, Market Structure, and Wages," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 91(6), pages 3569-3607.
    6. Samuel Fosu, 2013. "Banking Competition in Africa: Sub-regional Comparative Studies," Discussion Papers in Economics 13/12, Division of Economics, School of Business, University of Leicester, revised Jun 2013.
    7. Murinde, Victor & Zhao, Tianshu, 2009. "Bank competition, risk taking and productive efficiency: Evidence from Nigeria's banking reform experiments," Stirling Economics Discussion Papers 2009-23, University of Stirling, Division of Economics.
    8. Wei, Shang-Jin & Tong, Hui, 2012. "Does Trade Globalization Induce or Inhibit Corporate Transparency? Unbundling the Growth Potential and Product Market Competiti," CEPR Discussion Papers 8836, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    9. Johan Swinnen & Alessandro Olper & Senne Vandevelde, 2021. "From unfair prices to unfair trading practices: Political economy, value chains and 21st century agri‐food policy," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 52(5), pages 771-788, September.
    10. Said-Nour Samake, 2022. "Prudential Regulation and Bank Efficiency : Evidence from WAEMU Zone," Working Papers hal-03540209, HAL.
    11. Burke, A.E. & van Stel, A.J. & Thurik, A.R., 2009. "Blue Ocean versus Competitive Strategy: Theory and Evidence," ERIM Report Series Research in Management ERS-2009-030-ORG, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    12. Jalal D. Akhavein & Allen N. Berger & David B. Humphrey, "undated". "The Effects of Megamergers on Efficiency and Prices: Evidence from a Bank Profit Function," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 1997-09, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.), revised 10 Dec 2019.
    13. J-L Hu & C-Y Fang, 2010. "Do market share and efficiency matter for each other? An application of the zero-sum gains data envelopment analysis," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 61(4), pages 647-657, April.
    14. Azzeddine Azzam & David Rosenbaum, 2001. "Differential efficiency, market structure and price," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 33(10), pages 1351-1357.
    15. Jin Lung Peng & Lih Ru Chen & Jennifer L. Wang & Larry Y. Tzeng, 2017. "Diversification Versus Strategic Focus: Evidence from Insurance Intermediaries in Taiwan," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 42(3), pages 530-555, July.
    16. Iman Seoudi & Matthias Huehn & Bo Carlsson, 2008. "Penrose Revisited: A Re-Appraisal of the Resource Perspective," Working Papers 14, The German University in Cairo, Faculty of Management Technology.
    17. Nesreen Barakat, 2012. "Arab Passengers’ Airlines Framework and Performance: Jordan Case," Working Papers 727, Economic Research Forum, revised 2012.
    18. Iryna Okolelova & Jacob A. Bikker, 2022. "The single supervisory mechanism: Competitive implications for the banking sectors in the euro area," International Journal of Finance & Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(2), pages 1818-1835, April.
    19. Schmalensee, Richard., 1985. "Testing the differential efficiency hypothesis," Working papers 1628-85., Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Sloan School of Management.
    20. Nicolai J. Foss, 2002. "The Strategy and Transaction Cost Nexus Past Debates, Central Questions, and Future Research Possibilities," DRUID Working Papers 02-04, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Competition; concentration;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:uea:ueaccp:2021_11. 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: Juliette Hardmad (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/esueauk.html .

    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.