Non-Price Effects of Mergers

2018 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 155-168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory T. Gundlach ◽  
Diana L. Moss
Keyword(s):  
Competition Policy ◽  
Price Competition ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Competitive Effects ◽  
Policy Responses ◽  
Merger Analysis ◽  
Price Effects

Mergers may impact price as well as non-price forms of competition in the form of product quality, variety, service, and innovation. This special issue of the Antitrust Bulletin examines the increasing importance of non-price dimensions of competition in merger analysis, the challenges that non-price effects pose for antitrust merger enforcement, and approaches for enhancing the analysis and role of non-price competition in merger enforcement decisions and competition policy responses. This is a critical discussion that informs the debate over the importance and adequacy of the consumer welfare standard, which is the prevailing standard for evaluating the competitive effects of mergers and nonmerger conduct.

scholarly journals Designing Competition Policy for Telecommunications

2008 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Glen O. Robinson ◽  
Dennis L. Weisman
Keyword(s):  
Competition Policy ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Dynamic Efficiency ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Competitive Outcome ◽  
Static Efficiency ◽  
Competitive Process ◽  
Welfare Losses ◽  
Network Sharing

This paper explores the role of the essential facilities doctrine in circumscribing the scope of network sharing obligations in telecommunications. Among other things it argues that a proper application of the doctrine of essential facilities should recognize the prominence of dynamic over static efficiency in promoting consumer welfare. Regulators may be averse to recognizing these tradeoffs because unlike the behavior of prices the welfare losses from foregone innovation may be unobservable to the regulators' constituency. Moreover, an emphasis on dynamic efficiency requires the short-term regulator to take the "long view" – fostering the competitive process rather than emulating the competitive outcome.

scholarly journals Governmental responses to COVID-19 Pandemic

2021 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Alketa Peci ◽  
Claudia Nancy Avellaneda ◽  
Kohei Suzuki
Keyword(s):  
Comparative Analysis ◽  
Mitigation Strategies ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Policy Responses ◽  
Body Of Knowledge ◽  
Pandemic Response ◽  
Similarities And Differences ◽  
Extensive Body ◽  
Economic And Social Impacts

Abstract In response to the challenges imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, governments worldwide adopted a variety of strategies that include not just preventive or mitigation strategies adopted to “flatten the curve”, but also interventions aiming to mitigate economic and social impacts of the pandemic. RAP`s special issue gathered 17 reflexive, timely and relevant contributions of different governmental approaches to the COVID-19 pandemic. In this paper we highlight similarities and differences in governmental responses across countries and regions. We uncover and discuss broad themes covered in the symposium, focusing on: (a) impacts of social distancing strategies; (b) economic-relief responses; c) the role of bargaining, collaboration and coordination across levels of governance; (d) key actors and their role in the pandemic response; (e) pandemic and socio-economic inequalities; and (f) context, policy responses and effectiveness. The symposium adds to an extensive body of knowledge that has been produced on the topic of policy responses to COVID-19 pandemic offering more diverse contextual and comparative analysis.

scholarly journals COMMUNICATING MARKETS: COMPETITION POLICY DISCOURSE AND DIGITAL PLATFORM POWER

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pawel Popiel
Keyword(s):  
Competition Policy ◽  
Digital Platforms ◽  
Congressional Hearings ◽  
Digital Platform ◽  
Policy Responses ◽  
Policy Interventions ◽  
Regulatory Frameworks ◽  
Role Of The State

Digital platforms elude legal and regulatory frameworks traditionally used to address market power, speech, and disinformation issues. One of the dominant policy responses to addressing these issues involves reforming competition policy to better manage digital platform markets. This case study examines how stakeholders, including tech giants, their competitors, regulators, and advocacy groups deploy competition policy to address platform power in a series of 2019-2020 U.S. congressional hearings on the subject, with implications for the wider global debate. The article traces the politics underlying these debates, which manifests in variations in stakeholders’ definitions of platform power and their proposed solutions, reflecting tensions over the role of the state in managing markets and in addressing non-economic concerns associated with digital platforms. The article concludes with a consideration of what this politics implies for policy interventions aimed at addressing platform power.

Addressing platform power: The politics of competition policy

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 341-360 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pawel Popiel
Keyword(s):  
Competition Policy ◽  
Advocacy Groups ◽  
Digital Platforms ◽  
Congressional Hearings ◽  
Policy Responses ◽  
Policy Interventions ◽  
Regulatory Frameworks ◽  
Role Of The State

Digital platforms elude legal and regulatory frameworks traditionally used to address market power, speech and disinformation issues. One of the dominant policy responses to addressing these issues involves reforming competition policy to better manage digital platform markets. This case study examines how stakeholders, including tech giants, their competitors, regulators and advocacy groups, deploy competition policy to address platform power in a series of 2019‐20 US congressional hearings on the subject, with implications for the wider global debate. The article traces the politics underlying these debates, which manifests in variations in stakeholders’ definitions of platform power and their proposed solutions, reflecting tensions over the role of the state in managing markets and in addressing non-economic concerns associated with digital platforms. The article concludes with a consideration of what this politics implies for policy interventions aimed at addressing platform power.

scholarly journals Jurisdictional perspectives on alternative dispute resolution and access to justice: introduction

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 103-107
Author(s):  
Lola Akin Ojelabi ◽  
Mary Anne Noone
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Law System ◽  
The Family ◽  
Equitable Outcomes ◽  
The Relationship

In many parts of the world, the adoption of alternative dispute-resolution (ADR) processes was premised on creating better access to justice for citizens, particularly those with lesser means (Woolf, 1996; Access to Justice Advisory Committee, 1994). ADR's foundational link with access to justice is in relation to not only justice as a process for the resolution of disputes, but also justice in relation to equality of access and equitable outcomes. This Special Issue focuses on the relationship between ADR and access to justice in various contexts and jurisdictions, including Australia, China, England and Wales, Scotland and Singapore, and within the family-law system in Australia. The papers engage in a critical discussion of ADR's contribution to access to justice in the resolution of disputes and, in particular, the extent to which ADR has contributed to improved access to justice. In doing this, the papers highlight the role of access-to-justice discourse in the development and growth of ADR; where available, review evaluations of access to justice in relation to ADR initiatives; and, finally, reflect on the future of ADR and access to justice.

scholarly journals Competition Policy, Rivalries, and Defense Industry Consolidation

1994 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 91-110 ◽  
Author(s):  
William E Kovacic ◽  
Dennis E Smallwood
Keyword(s):  
Department Of Defense ◽  
Competition Policy ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Defense Industry ◽  
Security Requirements ◽  
Competitive Effects ◽  
Merger Analysis ◽  
Funding Program ◽  
Industry Consolidation ◽  
Acquisition Strategy

Declining outlays for new weapons programs have triggered a process of consolidation that promises to shrink the U.S. defense industry drastically. Consolidation in the defense industry raises complex competition policy issues that are not amenable to conventional antitrust merger analysis. This paper presents a framework for identifying important contractor competencies, assessing rivalries in defense industry segments, and evaluating the competitive effects of mergers and other consolidation events. As applied to antitrust oversight and to Department of Defense funding, program, and acquisition strategy decisions, this framework can help preserve supply alternatives for developing state-of-the-art weapons needed to satisfy national security requirements.

scholarly journals Evidence Production in Merger Control: The Role of Remedies

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt ◽  
Christian Wey
Keyword(s):  
Competition Policy ◽  
Information Acquisition ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Merger Control ◽  
Policy System

AbstractWe analyze evidence production in merger control as a delegation problem in an inquisitorial competition policy system. The antitrust agency’s incentives to produce evidence on the efficiency of a merger proposal depend critically on its action set. Allowing for a compromising remedy solution reduces information acquisition incentives, and could therefore reduce consumer welfare. The effort-frustrating effect of the remedy solution can be eliminated if a remedy solution can be implemented only after evidence on the efficiency of a merger proposal has been produced.

The Simple Economics of Wholesale Price-Parity Agreements: The Case of the Airline Tickets Distribution Industry*

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jorge Padilla ◽  
Salvatore Piccolo ◽  
Nadine Watson
Keyword(s):  
Competition Policy ◽  
Distribution Systems ◽  
Wholesale Price ◽  
Consumer Welfare ◽  
Distribution Channels ◽  
Retail Price ◽  
Competitive Effects ◽  
Global Distribution Systems ◽  
Airline Tickets ◽  
Strength Of Competition

Abstract This paper clarifies the differences between retail and wholesale price-parity agreements in vertical industries. In contrast to traditional wide and narrow retail price-parity arrangements, the competitive effects of wholesale price-parity depend on the complexity of the vertical supply chain, the business model operated by sellers and distributors, and the strength of competition between direct and indirect distribution channels. While retail price-parity agreements are almost always anticompetitive, wholesale price-parity agreements may positively affect consumer welfare when direct and indirect distribution channels are close substitutes. To demonstrate the relevance of our analysis for competition policy, we illustrate our findings by referring to an industry that has recently attracted policy and regulatory interest on both sides of the Atlantic: the airline ticket distribution industry. We find that, in this industry, while wholesale price-parity agreements always harm airlines, Global Distribution Systems (GDSs) have preferences more aligned with consumers: when consumers benefit from these provisions, GDSs benefit too. JEL: K21, L13, L40

Argumentation theory: competition between modern research approaches

2018 ◽  
pp. 77-87
Author(s):  
Анатолий Мигунов ◽  
Anatoliy Migunov ◽  
Елена Лисанюк ◽  
Elena Lisanyuk
Keyword(s):  
Social Life ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Procedural Semantics ◽  
Social Success ◽  
Large Structures ◽  
Criteria Importance ◽  
Practical Argumentation ◽  
Argumentative Structure ◽  
Theory Competition

To overcome the crisis in the sphere of argumentation studies, the project proposes a logical-cognitive concept of argumentation which is a compound formalized theory that includes formalisms for modeling argumentation of different types, a relevant conceptual framework and a methodology for the use of scientific research in the practice. Three types of argumentation are defined: theoretical (two types) and practical. Theoretical argumentation is a critical discussion of the agents’ knowledge and opinions about facts aimed to substantiate a certain view or to change it – i.e. persuasion. Practical argumentation is a critical discussion of opinions about actions which includes, in addition to the statements about knowledge and opinions, statements of a non-descriptive nature about the agents’ values and intentions to adhere to a certain line of behavior. The study of argumentation needs to focus on the large structures that reflect specifics of the criticism and defense of the positions of the parties. An atom unit of such study is the argument as a statement of reason, while its molecular elements are the argumentative structure of a dispute (frame), a multitude of arguments that express the parties’ positions, a multitude of the agents’ knowledge and opinions that act as the bases for the formation of positions, lines of behavior, etc. Within the framework of this trend, both indefeasible (deductive) and defeasible argumentations can be studied. The argumentation effectiveness can be assessed based on the procedural semantics and using analogues of such logical notions as consistency and completeness. Modern approaches to the argumentation, including those claiming the compound status, can be classified using two methods: based on the substantive and practical criteria. Importance of the research outcomes amounts to the theoretical and methodological role of the new conception of argumentation and the general “umbrella” term argumentation that allows systematizing the manifold research and educational approaches and concepts in this field and is associated with communicative nature of modern social life where efficiency and social success rely on argumentative and narrative competences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document