反垄断中的经济证据:定义市场和衡量市场力量

J. Baker, T. Bresnahan
{"title":"反垄断中的经济证据:定义市场和衡量市场力量","authors":"J. Baker, T. Bresnahan","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.931225","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper addresses an important aspect of the interdisciplinary collaboration between law and economics: the use antitrust courts can and should make of empirical industrial organization economics, in light of the expansion of empirical knowledge generated during the last few decades. First we show how courts can apply what economists have learned about identification of alternative theories of industry structure and firm strategy to the problems of defining markets and determining whether market power has been exercised. We emphasize that the same analytic issues arise regardless of whether the evidence on these concepts is quantitative or qualitative. Second we show how courts can adopt a strategy employed in the research literature, by exploiting generalizations across closely related industries to help evaluate evidence and resolve cases. We also discuss ways of increasing the institutional capacity of the judicial system to make use of these two bodies of economic learning. These include a possible limited role for neutral economic experts in litigation, and a role for the antitrust enforcement agencies in identifying and codifying relevant generalizations about industries from the empirical economic literature to make that learning available to courts.","PeriodicalId":90732,"journal":{"name":"Stanford technology law review : STLR : an online high-technology law journal from Stanford Law School","volume":"23 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"47","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Economic Evidence in Antitrust: Defining Markets and Measuring Market Power\",\"authors\":\"J. Baker, T. Bresnahan\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.931225\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper addresses an important aspect of the interdisciplinary collaboration between law and economics: the use antitrust courts can and should make of empirical industrial organization economics, in light of the expansion of empirical knowledge generated during the last few decades. First we show how courts can apply what economists have learned about identification of alternative theories of industry structure and firm strategy to the problems of defining markets and determining whether market power has been exercised. We emphasize that the same analytic issues arise regardless of whether the evidence on these concepts is quantitative or qualitative. Second we show how courts can adopt a strategy employed in the research literature, by exploiting generalizations across closely related industries to help evaluate evidence and resolve cases. We also discuss ways of increasing the institutional capacity of the judicial system to make use of these two bodies of economic learning. These include a possible limited role for neutral economic experts in litigation, and a role for the antitrust enforcement agencies in identifying and codifying relevant generalizations about industries from the empirical economic literature to make that learning available to courts.\",\"PeriodicalId\":90732,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stanford technology law review : STLR : an online high-technology law journal from Stanford Law School\",\"volume\":\"23 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"47\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stanford technology law review : STLR : an online high-technology law journal from Stanford Law School\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.931225\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stanford technology law review : STLR : an online high-technology law journal from Stanford Law School","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.931225","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 47

摘要

本文论述了法律和经济学之间跨学科合作的一个重要方面:根据过去几十年产生的经验知识的扩展,反垄断法院可以而且应该利用经验产业组织经济学。首先,我们展示了法院如何将经济学家所学到的关于产业结构和企业战略的替代理论识别的知识应用于定义市场和确定市场力量是否已经行使的问题。我们强调,无论关于这些概念的证据是定量的还是定性的,都会出现同样的分析问题。其次,我们展示了法院如何采用研究文献中采用的策略,通过利用密切相关行业的概括来帮助评估证据和解决案件。我们还讨论了如何提高司法系统利用这两种经济学习体系的体制能力。其中包括中立的经济专家在诉讼中可能发挥的有限作用,以及反垄断执法机构在从实证经济文献中识别和编纂有关行业的相关概括方面的作用,使法院可以从中学习。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Economic Evidence in Antitrust: Defining Markets and Measuring Market Power
This paper addresses an important aspect of the interdisciplinary collaboration between law and economics: the use antitrust courts can and should make of empirical industrial organization economics, in light of the expansion of empirical knowledge generated during the last few decades. First we show how courts can apply what economists have learned about identification of alternative theories of industry structure and firm strategy to the problems of defining markets and determining whether market power has been exercised. We emphasize that the same analytic issues arise regardless of whether the evidence on these concepts is quantitative or qualitative. Second we show how courts can adopt a strategy employed in the research literature, by exploiting generalizations across closely related industries to help evaluate evidence and resolve cases. We also discuss ways of increasing the institutional capacity of the judicial system to make use of these two bodies of economic learning. These include a possible limited role for neutral economic experts in litigation, and a role for the antitrust enforcement agencies in identifying and codifying relevant generalizations about industries from the empirical economic literature to make that learning available to courts.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Money Market: A Study with Reference to India Monetary Policy Implications of the COVID-19 Outbreak, The Social Pandemic Changing Preferences: An Experiment and Estimation of Market-Incentive Effects on Altruism Does Informing Employees About Tax Benefits Increase Take-Up?: Evidence From EITC Notification Laws Copyright and the 1%
×
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