A Critique of Antitrust Econometrics: Aggregation, the Representative Consumer, and the Broader Concerns of the New Brandeis School

Q2 Social Sciences Antitrust Bulletin Pub Date : 2022-01-26 DOI:10.1177/0003603X211067829
G. Lozada
{"title":"A Critique of Antitrust Econometrics: Aggregation, the Representative Consumer, and the Broader Concerns of the New Brandeis School","authors":"G. Lozada","doi":"10.1177/0003603X211067829","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Some economists argue antitrust policy should be based on empirical methods used by the Industrial Organization subdiscipline of economics, but those methods contain assumptions that noneconomists should recognize. Those assumptions underlie econometric “identification,” and underlie treating aggregate demand as if it were generated by a representative consumer (Muellbauer’s “generalized linear” preferences). We explain aggregation bias in Almost Ideal Demand System models, then show that data limitations make it even harder to justify economists’ restricting aggregate demands as one would the demand of one individual. Such problems notwithstanding, the main problem with antitrust econometrics may be that there is not enough of it. Whether firms maximize profit is understudied empirically; many may maximize return on assets instead, leading to firms with assets and employees below their profit-maximizing level. There is insufficient empirical study of this and many other topics of concern to New Brandeisians.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"67 1","pages":"69 - 99"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X211067829","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Some economists argue antitrust policy should be based on empirical methods used by the Industrial Organization subdiscipline of economics, but those methods contain assumptions that noneconomists should recognize. Those assumptions underlie econometric “identification,” and underlie treating aggregate demand as if it were generated by a representative consumer (Muellbauer’s “generalized linear” preferences). We explain aggregation bias in Almost Ideal Demand System models, then show that data limitations make it even harder to justify economists’ restricting aggregate demands as one would the demand of one individual. Such problems notwithstanding, the main problem with antitrust econometrics may be that there is not enough of it. Whether firms maximize profit is understudied empirically; many may maximize return on assets instead, leading to firms with assets and employees below their profit-maximizing level. There is insufficient empirical study of this and many other topics of concern to New Brandeisians.
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
反垄断计量经济学批判:聚合、代表消费者与新布兰迪斯学派的更广泛关注
一些经济学家认为,反垄断政策应该基于工业组织经济学分支学科使用的实证方法,但这些方法包含非经济学家应该承认的假设。这些假设是计量经济学“识别”的基础,也是将总需求视为代表性消费者产生的基础(Muellbauer的“广义线性”偏好)。我们解释了几乎理想需求系统模型中的聚合偏差,然后表明数据限制使经济学家更难证明限制总需求是合理的,就像限制一个人的需求一样。尽管存在这些问题,但反垄断计量经济学的主要问题可能是不够;许多公司可能会将资产回报率最大化,导致公司的资产和员工低于其利润最大化水平。对这一点和许多其他新布兰代人关注的话题没有足够的实证研究。
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
Antitrust Bulletin
Antitrust Bulletin Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Geographic Market Definition in Commercial Health Insurer Matters: A Unified Approach for Merger Review, Monopolization Claims, and Monopsonization Claims Do EU and U.K. Antitrust “Bite”?: A Hard Look at “Soft” Enforcement and Negotiated Penalty Settlements Wall Street’s Practice of Compelling Confidentiality of Private Underwriting Fees: An Antitrust Violation? Two Challenges for Neo-Brandeisian Antitrust Epic Battles in Two-Sided Markets
×
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