Suchergebnisse

We examine if the Nordic power market, Nord Pool, has been competitive or if electricity suppliers have had market power. Specifically, since the evolution from national markets to a multi-national and largely deregulated power market has taken place stepwise, we also examine how the degree of market power has evolved during this integration process. The Bresnahan-Lau method together with weekly data during 1996-2004 are used in the analysis, which shows that electricity suppliers have had small, but statistically significant, market power, but that the market power has been reduced as the Nord Pool area has expanded.

"We analyze the incidence and welfare effects of unit sales taxes in experimental monopoly and Bertrand markets. We find, in line with economic theory, that firms with no market power are able to shift a high share of a tax burden on to consumers, independent of whether buyers are automated or human players. In monopoly markets, a monopolist bears a large share of the burden of a tax increase. With human buyers, however, this share is smaller than with automated buyers as the presence of human buyers constrains the pricing behavior of a monopolist." (author's abstract)

We analyze the incidence and welfare effects of unit sales taxes in experimental monopoly and Bertrand markets. We find, in line with economic theory, that firms with no market power are able to shift a high share of a tax burden on to consumers, independent of whether buyers are automated or human players. In monopoly markets, a monopolist bears a large share of the burden of a tax increase. With human buyers, however, this share is smaller than with automated buyers as the presence of human buyers constrains the pricing behavior of a monopolist.

AbstractWe analyze the incidence and welfare effects of unit sales tax increases in experimental monopoly and Bertrand markets. We find, in line with economic theory, that firms with no market power are able to shift a high share of the tax burden to consumers, independent of whether buyers are automated or human players. In monopoly markets, a monopolist bears a large share of the burden of a tax increase. With human buyers, however, this share is smaller than with automated buyers, as the presence of human buyers constrains the pricing behaviour of a monopolist. Several control treatments corroborate this finding.

Antitrust is back on the national agenda. The Democratic Party, leading Senators, progressive organizations, and many scholars are calling for stronger antitrust enforcement. One important step, overlooked in the discussion to date, is to reform how market power — an essential element in most antitrust violations — is determined. At present the very definition of market power is unsettled. While there is widespread agreement that market power is the ability to raise price profitably above the competitive level, there is no consensus on how to determine the competitive level. Moreover, courts virtually never measure market power (or its larger variant, monopoly power) by identifying the competitive level and comparing a defendant's price to it. Rather, they attempt to define a relevant market and calculate the defendant's market share, a process that is often complex and misleading. This Article proposes a new approach that would infer market power from the likely effects of the challenged conduct. Courts ought to identify power by asking whether the challenged conduct is likely to enable the defendant(s) to raise price above the prevailing level or maintain price above the but for level (the level to which price would fall absent the challenged conduct). This method would not only close the definitional gap, it would enable courts to resolve two critical elements of most antitrust offenses — market power and anticompetitive effects — at the same time, while inferring the relevant market from the result. In short, by reducing the cost and improving the accuracy of antitrust enforcement, this step would increase its impact.