« July 24, 2011 - July 30, 2011 | Main | August 7, 2011 - August 13, 2011 »
August 6, 2011
A Competition Perspective on Patent Law: The Federal Trade Commission's Report on the Evolving IP Marketplace
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
Edith Ramirez (FTC) and Lisa Kimmel (FTC) have written on A Competition Perspective on Patent Law: The Federal Trade Commission's Report on the Evolving IP Marketplace.
August 6, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 5, 2011
Side Effects of Competition: the Role of Advertising and Promotion in Pharmaceutical Markets
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
Guy David (Wharton) and Sara Markowitz (Emory) explain Side Effects of Competition: the Role of Advertising and Promotion in Pharmaceutical Markets.
ABSTRACT: The extent of pharmaceutical advertising and promotion can be characterized by a balancing act between profitable demand expansions and potentially unfavorable subsequent regulatory actions. However, this balance also depends on the nature of competition (e.g. monopoly versus oligopoly). In this paper we model the firm’s behavior under different competitive scenarios and test the model’s predictions using a novel combination of sales, promotion, advertising, and adverse event reports data. We focus on the market for erectile dysfunction drugs as the basis for estimation. This market is ideal for analysis as it is characterized by an abrupt shift in structure, all drugs are branded, the drugs are associated with adverse health events, and have extensive advertising and promotion. We find that advertising and promotion expenditures increase own market share but also increase the share of adverse drug reactions. Competi! tors’ spending decreases market share, while also having an influence on adverse drug reactions.
August 5, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack
Barriers to Entry, Deregulation and Workplace Training
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
Andrea Bassanini (OECD) and Giorgio Brunello (University of Padova) discuss Barriers to Entry, Deregulation and Workplace Training.
ABSTRACT: We study the impact of regulatory barriers to entry on workplace training. We develop a model of training in imperfectly competitive product and labour markets. The model indicates that there are two contrasting effects of deregulation on training. As stressed in the literature, with a given number of firms, deregulation reduces the size of rents per unit of output that firms can reap by training their employees. Yet, the number of firms increases following deregulation, thereby raising output and profit gains from training and improving investment incentives. The latter effect prevails. In line with the predictions of the theoretical model, we find that the substantial deregulation in the 1990s of heavily regulated European industries (energy, transport and communication) increased training incidence.
August 5, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Sharis Pozen Named Acting Head of DOJ Antitrust
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
It is official. Sharis Pozen has been named the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice.
August 5, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Private Agreements for Coordinating Patent Rights: The Case of Patent Pools
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
Nancy Gallini (UBC) has an interesting paper on Private Agreements for Coordinating Patent Rights: The Case of Patent Pools.
ABSTRACT: Inventors and users of technology often enter into cooperative agreements for sharing their intellectual property in order to implement a standard or to avoid costly litigation. Over the past two decades, U.S. antitrust authorities have viewed pooling arrangements that integrate complementary, valid and essential patents as having procompetitive benefits in reducing prices, transactions costs, and the incidence of legal suits. Since patent pools are cooperative agreements, they also have the potential of suppressing competition if, for example, they harbor weak or invalid patents, dampen incentives to conduct research on innovations that compete with the pooled patents, foreclose competition from downstream product or upstream input markets, or raise prices on goods that compete with the pooled patents. In synthesizing the ideas advanced in the economic literature, this paper explores whether these antitrust concerns apply to pools with complementary patents and, if they do, the implications for competition policy to constrain them. Special attention is given to the application of the U.S. Department of Justiceâ€Federal Trade Commission Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property (1995) and its companion Antitrust Enforcement and Intellectual Property Rights: Promoting Innovation and Competition (2007) to recent patent pool cases.
August 5, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 4, 2011
Classical vs. Neoclassical Conceptions of Competition
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
Lefteris Tsoulfidis (Department of Economics, University of Macedonia) addresses Classical vs. Neoclassical Conceptions of Competition.
ABSTRACT: This article discusses two major conceptions of competition, the classical and the neoclassical. In the classical conception, competition is viewed as a dynamic rivalrous process of firms struggling with each other over the expansion of their market shares. This dynamic view of competition characterizes mainly the works of Smith, Ricardo, J.S. Mill and Marx; a similar view can be also found in the writings of Austrian economists and the business literature. By contrast, the neoclassical conception of competition is derived from the requirements of a theory geared towards static equilibrium and not from any historical observation of the way in which firms actually organize and compete with each other.
August 4, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Consumer behavioural biases in competition: A survey
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
Steffen Huck and Jidong Zhou (both University College London Econ) have written on Consumer behavioural biases in competition: A survey.
ABSTRACT: This is a survey of studies that examine competition in the presence of behaviourally biased or boundedly rational consumers. It will tackle questions such as: How does competition and pricing change when consumers are biased? Can inefficiencies that arise from consumer behavioural biases be mitigated by lowering barriers to entry? Do biased consumers make rational ones better or worse off? And will biased consumer behaviour be overcome through learning or education?
August 4, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
The effect of vertical knowledge spillovers via the supply chain on location decision of firms
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
Mohammad Ali Kashe, Bielefeld Graduate School of Economics and Management studies The effect of vertical knowledge spillovers via the supply chain on location decision of firms.
ABSTRACT: In this paper a game theoretic model is employed to analyze the relationship between strategic location decision of firms in the supply chain considering the role of horizontal and vertical knowledge spillovers, and numerical approach is applied to characterize the equilibria of the considered multi-stage game. Geographical concentration or isolation as equilibrium outcome is determined based on our different parameterizations and two scenarios each consists of two separated cases, which we establish according to the location of our agents. In the first scenario both suppliers are supposed to be located in different regions while in the second one they act in a same region. In addition, first case of each scenario considers geographical isolation of two producers whereas second case investigates the geographical concentration. Furthermore, the effect of different technological level of our agents on their final location ! decision is investigated.
August 4, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Competition Leverage: How the Demand Side Affects Optimal Risk Adjustment
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
Michiel Bijlsma, Jan Boone, Gijsbert Zwart (Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research) explore Competition Leverage: How the Demand Side Affects Optimal Risk Adjustment.
ABSTRACT: We study optimal risk adjustment in imperfectly competitive health insurance markets when high-risk consumers are less likely to switch insurer than low-risk consumers. First, we find that insurers still have an incentive to select even if risk adjustment perfectly corrects for cost differences among consumers. Consequently, the outcome is not efficient even if cost differences are fully compensated. To achieve first best, risk adjustment should overcompensate for serving high-risk agents to take into account the difference in mark- ups among the two types. Second, the difference in switching behavior creates a trade off between efficiency and consumer welfare. Reducing the difference in risk adjustment subsidies to high and low types increases consumer welfare by leveraging competition from the elastic low-risk market to the less elastic high-risk market. Finally, mandatory pooling can increase consumer surplus even fur! ther, at the cost of efficiency.
August 4, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
August 3, 2011
Supplier Responses to Wal-Mart's Invasion of Mexico
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
Leonardo Iacovone (World Bank), Beata Smarzynska Javorcik (Oxford), Wolfgang Keller (Princeton), and James R. Tybout (Penn State) have an interest in Supplier Responses to Wal-Mart's Invasion of Mexico.
ABSTRACT: This paper examines the effect of Wal-Mart's entry into Mexico on Mexican manufacturers of consumer goods. Guided by firm interviews that suggested substantial heterogeneity across firms in how they responded to Wal-Mart's entry, we develop a dynamic industry model in which firms decide whether to sell their products through Walmex (short for Wal-Mart de Mexico), or use traditional retailers. Walmex provides access to a larger market, but it puts continuous pressure on its suppliers to improve their product's appeal, and it forces them to accept relatively low prices relative to product appeal.
Simulations of the model show that the arrival of Walmex separates potential suppliers into two groups. Those with relatively high-appeal products choose Walmex as their retailer, whereas those with lower appeal products do not. For the industry as a whole, the model predicts that the associated market share reallocations, adjustments in innovative effort, and exit patterns increase productivity and the rate of innovation. These predictions accord well with the results from our firm interviews. The model's predictions are also supported by establishment-level panel data that characterize Mexican producers' domestic sales, investments, and productivity gains in regions with differing levels of Walmex presence during the years 1994 to 2002.
August 3, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Market Power, Efficiency and Performance of Indonesian Banks
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
Fadilla Dwi Ardianty, Universitas Indonesia and Viverita Viverita, University of Indonesia (UI) - Graduate School of Management, Faculty of Economics discuss Market Power, Efficiency and Performance of Indonesian Banks.
ABSTRACT:This study aims to examine the existence of the two common hypothesis in banking industry, i.e: the Structure Conduct Performance (SCP) Hypothesis and the Efficient Structure (EFS) Hypothesis by analyzing the impact of market power and efficiency on performance of public banks in Indonesia for the period of 2003-2009. The estimation of efficiency is obtained by using two difference approaches: a parametric Stochastic Frontier Analysis (SFA) and non-parametric Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA). Findings of the study support the Structure Conduct Performance hypothesis, where market power is the most significant factor that influences banking performance. Furthermore, the results also support a quiet life hypothesis where the banks enjoy the advantages of market power in terms of foregone revenues or cost savings.
August 3, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Anti-Monopoly Law and Practice in China
Posted by D. Daniel Sokol
H. Stephen Harris (Baker McKenzie), Peter J. Wang (Jones Day), Mark A. Cohen (Jones Day), Yizhe Zhang (Jones Day) and Sebastien J. Evrard (Jones Day) have put out Anti-Monopoly Law and Practice in China.
BOOK ABSTRACT: The China Anti-Monopoly Law (AML), which became effective August 1, 2008, is the first comprehensive competition law enacted by China. The AML prohibits a broad array of agreements between competitors and commercial counterparties, as well as competitive conduct by single firms that may harm the competitive process. In addition, it establishes a mandatory administrative review procedure for mergers and acquisitions between companies meeting certain sales thresholds, globally or in China. Beyond these fundamental provisions, the AML prohibits certain types of administrative abuses believed to be prevalent in China and establishes a complex set of administrative agencies with broad powers to enforce the law. Anti-Monopoly Law and Practice in China is the first comprehensive treatment of the AML and the practice of antitrust law under this new system. Each chapter on the substantive provisions of the law includes practical advice on approaches to meeting the challenge of complying with the law's requirements, including analysis of likely interpretations and applications of the AML based on precedents in related economic laws and actions by other administrative agencies. Where policy choices are uncertain, the text will explore probable developments in China based on comparable applications of competition laws in other jurisdictions.
Table of Contents:
Introduction
Legislative history
Monopoly Agreement
Abuses of Dominant Position
Merger Review
Cases Involving Governmental and Quasi-Governmental Entities
Intellectual Property
Enforcement
Courts
Other Competition-Law Related Statutes
August 3, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack
