Thursday, July 14, 2011
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
Malcolm Coate (FTC) has an interesting paper on The Use of Natural Experiments in Merger Analysis.
ABSTRACT: Natural experiments may serve as a test of an economic theory that purports to evaluate the competitive effects of a proposed transaction and therefore play an important role in merger analysis. Using aggregate reviews of Federal Trade Commission merger studies, it is possible to identify a range of quantitative and qualitative experiments supportive of unilateral effects, coordinated interaction or continued competition theories. The court decisions in Staples, Oracle, and Whole Foods play an important role in structuring the review in unilateral cases, while Richard Posner’s commentary on performance analysis is relevant to coordinated interaction cases. Other experiments show either no structure-performance relationship in a market or undermine a key characteristic of Guidelines analysis to imply that the merger in question is not likely to be anti-competitive. A final section evaluates the linkage between the experimental evidence, supplemented at times with validated customer complaint and hot document findings, and the merger challenge decision. While the results show the bulk of the merger challenges were substantiated by some type of evidence, a number of matters are challenged on pure structural grounds.