Towards a More Vigorous Antitrust Policy?

IF 0.8 4区 经济学 Q3 ECONOMICS Review of Industrial Organization Pub Date : 2024-08-05 DOI:10.1007/s11151-024-09981-x
Robert W. Crandall
{"title":"Towards a More Vigorous Antitrust Policy?","authors":"Robert W. Crandall","doi":"10.1007/s11151-024-09981-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The growth of the large, “dominant” digital platforms – as well as increases in national concentration of U.S. industries and average profit margins, and a decline in labor’s share of national income – have prompted calls for a stronger antitrust policy. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have recently responded with a more vigorous attack on mergers and have launched monopolization cases against Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google; two of these suits specifically seek divestitures as remedies. The early results of the more aggressive merger policy are not favorable, and the likelihood that court-ordered divestitures would be effective in increasing competition is low if the results of previous monopolization cases are a relevant guide. In addition, two pieces of legislation have been proposed in the U.S. Congress to curb the power of the large, dominant digital platforms. Neither of these proposals addresses the source of the platforms’ dominant positions; they would merely constrain the ability of these platforms to exploit their market positions. One of these bills, however, would require the largest platforms to interconnect with other businesses and, potentially, their rivals. This is a proposal that could result in all of the problems that a similar policy in telecommunications created two decades ago.</p>","PeriodicalId":47454,"journal":{"name":"Review of Industrial Organization","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Industrial Organization","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-024-09981-x","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The growth of the large, “dominant” digital platforms – as well as increases in national concentration of U.S. industries and average profit margins, and a decline in labor’s share of national income – have prompted calls for a stronger antitrust policy. The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) have recently responded with a more vigorous attack on mergers and have launched monopolization cases against Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google; two of these suits specifically seek divestitures as remedies. The early results of the more aggressive merger policy are not favorable, and the likelihood that court-ordered divestitures would be effective in increasing competition is low if the results of previous monopolization cases are a relevant guide. In addition, two pieces of legislation have been proposed in the U.S. Congress to curb the power of the large, dominant digital platforms. Neither of these proposals addresses the source of the platforms’ dominant positions; they would merely constrain the ability of these platforms to exploit their market positions. One of these bills, however, would require the largest platforms to interconnect with other businesses and, potentially, their rivals. This is a proposal that could result in all of the problems that a similar policy in telecommunications created two decades ago.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
走向更有力的反垄断政策?
大型 "主导型 "数字平台的发展,以及美国全国产业集中度和平均利润率的提高,以及劳动力在国民收入中所占份额的下降,都促使人们呼吁制定更强有力的反垄断政策。美国联邦贸易委员会(FTC)和美国司法部(DOJ)最近采取了应对措施,对兼并发起了更猛烈的攻击,并对亚马逊、苹果、Facebook 和谷歌发起了垄断诉讼;其中两起诉讼特别寻求资产剥离作为补救措施。更激进的兼并政策的早期结果并不理想,如果以前垄断案件的结果可以作为参考,那么法院下令的资产剥离能有效增加竞争的可能性很低。此外,美国国会已提出两项立法,以遏制大型主导数字平台的力量。这两项提案都没有解决平台支配地位的根源问题;它们只是限制这些平台利用其市场地位的能力。不过,其中一项法案将要求最大的平台与其他企业互联,甚至可能与竞争对手互联。这项提案可能会导致二十年前电信领域类似政策所造成的所有问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
9.10%
发文量
35
期刊介绍: New Online Manuscript Submission System The Review of Industrial Organization publishes research papers on all aspects of industrial organization, broadly defined. A main focus is on competition and monopoly, in their many forms and processes and their effects on efficiency, innovation, and social conditions. Topics may range from the internal organization of enterprises to wide international comparisons. The Review is also increasing its interest in papers on public policies such as antitrust, regulation, deregulation, public enterprise, and privatization. Papers may deal with any economic sectors and any developed economies. The Review continues its primary interest in ideas that can be verified by econometric evidence, case studies, or other real conditions. But the Review also seeks papers that advance significant theories of industrial organization and policy. Papers using abstract techniques and econometric tests should present the methods and analysis in plain enough English so that non-specialist readers can evaluate the content. The Review welcomes submissions from any source, and the Editors will make every effort to have papers reviewed quickly and to give prompt decisions. The Editors will also seek to arrange symposia on specific topics, and they are open to proposals for grouped papers. They also welcome shorter notes and commentaries on topics of interest to the profession. Officially cited as: Rev Ind Organ
期刊最新文献
A Transactions Cost Analysis of the Welfare and Output Effects of Rebates and Non-Linear Pricing Cartel Damages Claims, Passing-On, and Passing-Back Location, Location, Quality:The Fixed Differentiation Principle The Coase Conjecture When the Monopolist and Customers have Different Discount Rates Heterogeneous Tax-Cut Pass-Through and Market Structure
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1