The sub-application described below is neither the fault of this standard nor of the economic instruments themselves – although they could of course be better. The below-average antitrust enforcement we see today is primarily the result of court decisions over the past 40 years. In addition to these federal laws, most states have antitrust laws enforced by attorneys general or private plaintiffs. Many of these laws are based on federal antitrust laws. 13. Thomas J. Holmes and James A. Schmitz Jr., “Competition and Productivity: A Review of Evidence,” Annual Review of Economics 2 (2010): 619–642, available from www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.economics.102308.124407; Nicholas Bloom and John Van Reenen, “Why do management practices differ between companies and countries?” Journal of Economic Perspectives 24 (1) (2010): 203–224, available from www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.24.1.203. The true and important distinction is between the anti-competitive economic power exercised by restricting one`s own production (classical power, stiglerian) and that exercised by restricting the production of rivals (power of exclusion, Bavarian). This appendix reflects some of the analysis behind this distinction and provides a slightly more formal technical illustration.
Antitrust policy depends on private enforcement in some important criteria to ensure its effectiveness. However, private enforcement actions are only permitted for those who suffer “antitrust harm” as a result of the alleged violation; That is, the kind of damage that antitrust law is supposed to prevent. [FN97] Some believe that Congress` concern for “consumer welfare” boils down to nothing more than a desire to increase economic efficiency. These analysts believe that the only apparent damage to market power is the inefficiency of the allocation. See in general R. BORK, loc. cit. 23, pp.
72-89. Others argue that the “consumer protection” congress, which is supposed to protect, is a broader concept. They believe that Congress disapproves of market power primarily because it “unfairly” deprives consumers of wealth. See land in general, loc. cit. 11, p. 65 (Discussion on Antitrust Objectives). Resources devoted to antitrust enforcement in the United States are lower relative to gross domestic product than they were in most of the mid-1900s and have declined significantly since 2000. Interestingly, this decline coincides with an increase in corporate profit margins, an increase in U.S. Supreme Court rulings protecting monopolists, and an increase in policies that benefit incumbents.
These models are in line with the interests that corporate profits favor over consumers and with companies that gain more control over the political process to achieve all these goals. This essay will first address the “burning” issues of today`s antitrust law, such as technology markets and digital platforms, as well as important everyday markets such as agriculture, transportation, and pharmaceuticals, and then move on to my recommendations for reform. Fifth, insurance companies benefit from limited antitrust exemptions, as provided for in the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. [45] Not all of these opinions can be correct. If antitrust law is necessary to simultaneously maximize the well-being of small communities, the number of Momand Pop companies, absolute freedom of entry, any competition between companies, the wealth of creditors of companies on the verge of bankruptcy, the free time of workers and the ability of companies to avoid competition between them, then antitrust law is paralyzed. Most business behaviour will favour at least one of these interests, while at least another will be delayed. Of course, after analysis, different antitrust issues may require different degrees or probabilities of anti-competitive economic power to prove an infringement. For example, we may require strong evidence of a significant level of monopoly power before condemning practices that can often generate significant efficiency gains, but that render the existence or absence of market power irrelevant when challenging practices whose sole purpose is to suppress competition.
[FN60] Similarly, when analysing anti-competitive practices, a higher level of market power may be required to constitute an infringement of a cartel only if certain self-regulating trends considered effective in most markets do not work. [FN61] Or, to stay true to the legislative intent, we can take simpler approaches to market power or overdo it or underestimate the likelihood that some degree of concentration will reflect monopoly power. None of the various legal formulations mentioned above are fundamentally wrong. Although articulated norms may contradict each other if the language of the courts is interpreted strictly, the criteria they imply are not radically incompatible. On the contrary, most legal formulations treat market power and monopoly power as roughly identical, but do not make it possible to know whether they are exactly the same and, if not, what degree of anti-competitive power is lower. In addition, these judicial definitions of market power and monopoly power, which reflect the current antitrust consensus, focus on the phenomenon of prices above the level of competition, but leave some related issues unclear, particularly if the anti-competitive power includes the ability to prevent price reductions or the power to exclude competition. The scope of antitrust laws and the extent to which they should interfere with a company`s freedom to operate or protect small businesses, communities and consumers is hotly debated. Some economists argue that antitrust laws do impede competition[3] and discourage companies from engaging in activities that would be beneficial to society[4].
One view suggests that antitrust law should focus solely on consumer benefits and overall efficiency, while a wide range of legal and economic theories view the role of antitrust law as a control of economic power in the public interest. [5] A 2011 survey of 568 members of the American Economic Association (AEA) found that a majority of 87% of respondents largely agreed with the statement “antitrust laws should be vigorously enforced.” [6] Fourth, the Sherman Act was intended to prevent groups of companies from acquiring the market power of Stigler or Bainanian or a dangerous likelihood of collusion, joint ventures or mergers, unless it was demonstrated that sufficient overall efficiencies are expected from the horizontal concentration. This stems from the related principles that the antitrust legality of horizontal mergers should be assessed before they are incorporated and that it is administratively difficult to disentangle companies after they are incorporated. [FN93] Perhaps the law could be more permissive when it comes to allowing combinations that threaten to relinquish Bavarian power, because unlike Stigler`s power, Bavarian power is sometimes easier to detect and correct when exercised. [FN94] For example, the law could prohibit combinations that could lead to Bainian power only when barriers to entry and concentration are higher. It remains to be demonstrated that it is useful to distinguish between the two methods of exercising market power. This section explains why the courts should distinguish between territorial and Bavarian power and how this can clarify the structuring of antitrust investigations, the definition of relevant markets, the measurement of market power, the treatment of unused market power and the competitiveness for bringing an action. From an antitrust point of view, both the exercise of conventional market power and Bain`s exclusionary market power lead to a loss of consumer welfare: the reduction of production below the effective level of competition deprives consumers of products that they value beyond the marginal costs of production. The exercise of one of the two types of power reduces the efficiency of the allocation and transfers the wealth of consumers to the owners of the companies that exercise monopoly power. [FN53] In addition, production efficiency is also reduced for Bain`s market power. [FN54] Many countries have general laws that protect consumers and regulate how companies conduct their businesses.
.