Research Programs
More
What are you looking for?
Showing Latest Publications
Scholarship Abstract Major competition regulators, and substantial portions of the scholarly community, have rapidly adopted the view that “killer acquisitions” and “kill zones” constitute significant sources . . .
Major competition regulators, and substantial portions of the scholarly community, have rapidly adopted the view that “killer acquisitions” and “kill zones” constitute significant sources of competitive risk arising from incumbent acquisitions of emerging firms in digital markets. Based on this view, policymakers in the United States, European Union, and other jurisdictions have advocated, and in some cases have taken, substantial changes to merger review policies that would erect significant obstacles to incumbent/startup acquisitions. A review of the relevant body of evidence finds that these widely-held views concerning incumbent/startup acquisitions rest on meager support, confined to ambiguous evidence drawn from a small portion of the total universe of acquisitions in the pharmaceutical market and theoretical models of acquisition transactions in information technology markets. Moreover, the emergent regulatory and scholarly consensus fails to take into account the rich body of evidence showing the critical function played by incumbent/startup acquisitions in supplying a monetization mechanism that induces venture-capital investment and promotes startup entry in technology markets. The prospect of an acquisition transaction in the case of technical and commercial success generally promotes innovation and competition by providing a transactional device that expands startups’ access to the capital inputs required to undertake R&D and the commercialization services required to convert R&D outputs into commercially viable products. At the same time, these acquisitions enable incumbents to access the specialized innovation capacities of smaller firms. Proposed changes to merger review standards would disrupt these efficient transactional mechanisms and are likely to have counterproductive effects on competitive conditions in innovation markets.
Amicus Brief Brief for Amici Curiae International Center For Law & Economics and 11 Scholars of Antitrust Law and Economics in Support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ . . .
Amici Curiae respectfully submit this brief in support of Defendants’ Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 130).[1]
The International Center for Law & Economics (“ICLE”) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, global research and policy center aimed at building the intellectual foundations for sensible, economically grounded policy. ICLE promotes the use of law and economics methodologies, and economic findings, to inform public policy. ICLE has longstanding expertise in antitrust law, and a strong interest in the proper development of antitrust jurisprudence. ICLE thus routinely files amicus briefs in cases, like this one, presenting important issues of antitrust law. ICLE is joined by 11 scholars of antitrust law and economics (listed in the Appendix to this brief ).
Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers where “the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.” 15 U.S.C. § 18. Congress used the word “may” to “indicate that its concern was with probabilities, not certainties.” Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 323 (1962). The government thus need not wait for anticompetitive conduct to occur before seeking relief. Id. at 317-18. Still, the government must show a “ ‘reasonable likelihood ’ of a substantial lessening of competition in the relevant market.” United States v. Marine Bancorp., 418 U.S. 602, 622 (1974) (emphasis added).
But—as Yogi Berra might have paraphrased Nils Bohr—it can be “tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” Enforcers and courts thus traditionally approach merger control with caution. Deciding whether to block a merger requires making predictions about its likely impact on competition and consumers. That requires evaluating both the likely future state of the market given the transaction and the “but for” world in which it does not take place, often with limited (but nonetheless sufficiently substantial) information and imperfect (but ideally well-tested) tools.
For decades, courts and enforcers have looked to economic principles to develop a set of considerations to inform and constrain such decision-making. Three of them are especially relevant here: the distinctions among horizontal, vertical, and conglomerate mergers; the distinction between structural and behavioral threats to competition; and the distinction between structural and behavioral remedies. In challenging Amgen’s proposed acquisition of Horizon, the Federal Trade Commission elides all three established distinctions. It instead seeks to block a likely procompetitive conglomerate merger based on harms supposed to arise from a chain of conjectured post-transaction events, where each link in the chain is highly speculative. It is unlikely that they will all come to pass and cause the competitive harm the FTC posits. There is no sound economic basis for blocking the merger here and forfeiting its likely procompetitive benefits. Because the antitrust theory alleged in the complaint lacks merit, the FTC cannot establish the “likelihood of success” necessary for a preliminary injunction. FTC v. Great Lakes Chem. Corp., 528 F. Supp. 84, 86 (N.D. Ill. 1981).
[1] No party’s counsel authored any part of this brief, and no person other than amici and their counsel made a monetary contribution to fund its preparation or submission.
Scholarship Abstract Evidence of rising market power in the U.S. economy has received widespread attention in macroeconomics literature. Recent research has linked trends in measured market . . .
Evidence of rising market power in the U.S. economy has received widespread attention in macroeconomics literature. Recent research has linked trends in measured market power to other secular trends in the U.S., including multi-decade trends of declining rates of job reallocation and business entry (or “business dynamism”). Intuitively, firms with more market power are less responsive to shocks, and industries characterized by market power may have (or create) significant barriers to entry. Both forces predict a negative correlation between market power and business dynamism. However, industry-level data shows zero, or often a positive, correlation between markups and business dynamism; industries that experienced larger increases in markups had smaller decreases in dynamism on average. Those few industries that saw both large declines in markups and large declines in dynamism do not account for a significant share of the aggregate trends in markups and dynamism. Our results suggest that market power does not explain the decline in dynamism.
TOTM A market with 1,000 tiny sellers is not some ideal market. Concentration can be extremely beneficial, leading to economies of scale and stiffer competition to . . .
A market with 1,000 tiny sellers is not some ideal market. Concentration can be extremely beneficial, leading to economies of scale and stiffer competition to win a big share of the market.
Yet the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and U.S. Justice Department’s (DOJ) draft merger guidelines double down on the idea that concentration is inherently a problem. They add new structural presumptions against concentration, for both horizontal and vertical mergers. Even worse, the agencies won’t recognize any efficiencies “if they will accelerate a trend toward concentration.”
The problem? Concentration is not a good proxy for competition. This post will go through some of the empirical work that generally finds that competition increases concentration. The FTC/DOJ are completely at odds with the economic literature on this point.
Read the whole piece here.
TOTM In our recent issue brief, Geoffrey Manne, Kristian Stout, and I considered the antitrust economics of state-owned enterprises—specifically the local power companies (LPCs) that are government-owned . . .
In our recent issue brief, Geoffrey Manne, Kristian Stout, and I considered the antitrust economics of state-owned enterprises—specifically the local power companies (LPCs) that are government-owned under the authority of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
While we noted that electricity cooperatives (co-ops) do not receive antitrust immunities and could therefore be subject to antitrust enforcement, we didn’t spend much time considering the economics of co-ops. This is important, because electricity co-ops themselves own a large number of poles and attaching to those poles at reasonable rates will be important to effectuate congressional intent to deploy broadband quickly in the rural areas those co-ops generally serve.
Read the full piece here.
TL;DR Background: In October 2022, supermarkets Kroger and Albertsons announced their intent to merge in a $24.6 billion deal. The combined company would be the third-largest . . .
Background: In October 2022, supermarkets Kroger and Albertsons announced their intent to merge in a $24.6 billion deal. The combined company would be the third-largest food and grocery retailer, behind Walmart and Amazon, and would account for roughly 9% of nationwide sales. Based on the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recently released draft merger guidelines and comments by FTC Chair Lina Khan, it appears likely that the agency will move to block the merger, even if the companies offer to divest stores to competing chains.
But… If the FTC does seek to block the deal, it will face an uphill battle. The retail industry has changed dramatically over the past few decades. Partly due to the tremendous growth of supercenters, club stores, and online retail, U.S. consumers are no longer “one-stop shoppers.” These market changes have placed tremendous competitive pressure on traditional retail.
Some of the deal’s critics have also raised concerns about the prospect of monopsony power in labor markets, but these claims are speculative at best and unlikely to hold up in court.
The FTC has for decades clung to a narrow definition of supermarkets that includes only those stores that allow consumers to buy nearly all of their weekly food and grocery needs in a single trip. This definition encompasses traditional food and grocery retailers, such as Kroger and Albertsons, as well as supercenters with grocery sections, such as some Walmart and Target stores. But critically, the FTC’s definition excludes warehouse clubs like Costco and e-commerce services like Amazon.
The FTC’s hypothetical customer is no longer typical. Grocery shopping has shifted toward more frequent shopping trips across various formats, including not only warehouse clubs and e-commerce services, but online-delivery platforms like Instacart; limited-assortment stores like Trader Joe’s and Aldi; natural and organic markets like Whole Foods; and ethnic-specialty stores like H Mart.
Due to these enormous changes, the market definition used in earlier FTC consent orders likely will be, and should be, challenged. This means there are fewer geographic areas where the deal would lead to problematic post-merger market positions.
Over the past 25 years or so, warehouse clubs and supercenters like Walmart have doubled their share of retail sales, while supermarkets’ share has dropped by more than 25%. Indeed, according to data from the industry magazine Progressive Grocer, if the merger goes through, Kroger/Albertsons will still be about 50% smaller than Walmart.
Along similar lines, online shopping and home delivery have grown from niche services that served only 10,000 households nationwide a quarter century ago to a scenario in which 12.5% of U.S. consumers now purchase groceries mostly or exclusively online.
Amazon is now the second-largest food and grocery retailer in the United States. Meanwhile, millions of consumers use delivery services like Instacart to purchase food and groceries from supermarkets, supercenters, club stores, wholesalers, and ethnic markets.
These new businesses place significant competitive pressure on traditional retailers, making the prospect of post-merger market power even more unlikely.
Some opponents of the merger argue that it would lead to monopsony power in labor markets and depress supermarket employee wages. But these concerns are overblown and will be nearly impossible to demonstrate if the merger were to be litigated.
The market for labor in the retail sector is highly competitive, with workers having a wide range of alternative employment options. More importantly, both Kroger and Albertsons are highly unionized firms. Through their collective-bargaining agreements, these unions exert their own market power.
Finally, some point to Haggen’s disastrous acquisition of stores spun-off from the Albertsons/Safeway merger as evidence that divestitures don’t work. But several factors idiosyncratic to Haggen and its acquisition strategy led to that failure, rather than the divestiture itself.
Before it acquired the stores, Haggen was a small regional chain with only 18 stores, mostly in Washington State. In addition, buying the stores left Haggen’s owners heavily in debt.
These issues could—and should—have been addressed when the FTC and the merging parties were negotiating their consent order. Today’s enforcers should thus learn from the Haggen experience—by devising workable remedies—rather than view it as a justification to reject reasonable divestiture options.
For more on this issue, see the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE) issue brief “Five Problems with a Potential FTC Challenge to the Kroger/Albertsons Merger.”
Scholarship Abstract Previous iterations of the DOJ/FTC Merger Guidelines have articulated a clear, rigorous, and transparent methodology for balancing the pro-competitive benefits of mergers against their . . .
Previous iterations of the DOJ/FTC Merger Guidelines have articulated a clear, rigorous, and transparent methodology for balancing the pro-competitive benefits of mergers against their anticompetitive costs. By describing agency practice, guidelines facilitate compliance, ensure consistent and reasonable enforcement, increase public understanding and confidence, and promote international cooperation.
But the 2023 Draft Merger Guidelines do not. They go to great lengths to articulate the potential anticompetitive costs of mergers but with no way to gauge “substantiality.” Most significantly, they ignore potential benefits, which eliminates the need for balancing. In other words, the Draft Guidelines provide very little guidance about current practice which adds risk, which deters mergers, which seems to be the point. We offer specific recommendations for Horizontal, Vertical, and Tech Mergers that do a better job differentiating procompetitive mergers from anticompetitive ones.
Popular Media There has been growing speculation about whether the Federal Trade Commission will seek to challenge the $24.6 billion merger that Cincinnati-based Kroger and Idaho-based Albertsons announced in . . .
There has been growing speculation about whether the Federal Trade Commission will seek to challenge the $24.6 billion merger that Cincinnati-based Kroger and Idaho-based Albertsons announced in October 2022. The combined company would be the third-largest food and grocery retailer, behind Walmart and Amazon. Based on the draft merger guidelines the FTC recently announced jointly with the U.S. Justice Department, as well as recent comments from FTC Chair Lina Khan, those reading the tea leaves expect the agency will move to block the merger, even if the companies offer to spin off stores to competing chains.
TOTM Over the river, into the woods, and down into the weeds we go. There’s a whole lot of drama going on at the Federal Trade . . .
Over the river, into the woods, and down into the weeds we go.
There’s a whole lot of drama going on at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), not least because of recent correspondence between the U.S. House Oversight Committee and FTC Chair Lina Khan that might politely—euphemistically, really—be termed “heated.” But I’m not gonna go there today. I had a bit to say about the new draft merger guidelines in my last roundup, but I barely scratched the surface. And I’m not going there either.
