Double Markups, Information, and Vertical Mergers

Q2 Social Sciences Antitrust Bulletin Pub Date : 2022-06-15 DOI:10.1177/0003603X221103115
S. Loertscher, L. Marx
{"title":"Double Markups, Information, and Vertical Mergers","authors":"S. Loertscher, L. Marx","doi":"10.1177/0003603X221103115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In vertical contracting models with complete information and linear prices, double markups that arise between independent firms provide an efficiency rationale for vertical mergers since these eliminate double markups (EDM). However, the double markups vanish even without vertical integration if the firms are allowed to use two-part tariffs. Hence, the efficiency rationale for vertical mergers in models of complete information requires restrictions on the contracts that firms can use. In a sense, with complete information, two-part tariffs are simply too powerful. If instead one allows incomplete information and removes the restriction on contract forms, then vertical mergers continue to have an effect that is analogous to EDM, but they also have the potential to affect the overall efficiency of the market to the detriment of society. Consequently, the social surplus effects of vertical integration depend on the underlying market structure, and vertical mergers are, in and of themselves, neither good nor bad. We illustrate through an example that with incomplete information, the private benefits from vertical integration tend to be excessive; that is, vertical mergers remain profitable even when they are socially harmful.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"67 1","pages":"434 - 441"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X221103115","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: 0

Abstract

In vertical contracting models with complete information and linear prices, double markups that arise between independent firms provide an efficiency rationale for vertical mergers since these eliminate double markups (EDM). However, the double markups vanish even without vertical integration if the firms are allowed to use two-part tariffs. Hence, the efficiency rationale for vertical mergers in models of complete information requires restrictions on the contracts that firms can use. In a sense, with complete information, two-part tariffs are simply too powerful. If instead one allows incomplete information and removes the restriction on contract forms, then vertical mergers continue to have an effect that is analogous to EDM, but they also have the potential to affect the overall efficiency of the market to the detriment of society. Consequently, the social surplus effects of vertical integration depend on the underlying market structure, and vertical mergers are, in and of themselves, neither good nor bad. We illustrate through an example that with incomplete information, the private benefits from vertical integration tend to be excessive; that is, vertical mergers remain profitable even when they are socially harmful.
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
双重标记、信息和垂直合并
在具有完全信息和线性价格的垂直合同模型中,独立公司之间出现的双重加价为垂直合并提供了效率基础,因为这消除了双重加价(EDM)。然而,如果允许公司使用两部分关税,即使没有垂直整合,双重加价也会消失。因此,完全信息模型中垂直合并的效率原理要求对公司可以使用的合同进行限制。从某种意义上说,在信息完备的情况下,分两部分征收的关税实在太强大了。相反,如果允许不完全信息并取消对合同形式的限制,那么垂直合并将继续产生类似于EDM的效果,但它们也有可能影响市场的整体效率,从而损害社会。因此,垂直整合的社会剩余效应取决于潜在的市场结构,垂直合并本身无好坏之分。我们通过一个例子说明,在信息不完全的情况下,垂直整合的私有利益往往过高;也就是说,纵向合并即使对社会有害,也仍然有利可图。
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