The Lawful Acquisition and Exercise of Monopoly Power and its Implications for the Objectives of Antitrust
David S. Evans
University of Chicago Law School; University College London; Global Economics Group
Keith N. Hylton
Boston University; Professor of Law, Boston University School of Law
September 26, 2008
Competition Policy International, Vol. 4, No. 2, p. 203, 2008
The antitrust laws of the United States have, from their inception, allowed firms to acquire significant market power, to charge prices that reflect that market power, and to enjoy supra-competitive returns. This article shows that this policy, which was established by the U.S. Congress and affirmed repeatedly by the U.S. courts, reflects a tradeoff between the dynamic benefits that society realizes from allowing firms to secure significant rewards, including monopoly profits, from making risky investments and engaging in innovation; and the static costs that society incurs when firms with significant market power raise price and curtail output. That tradeoff results in antitrust laws that allow competition in the market and for the market, even if that rivalry results in a single firm emerging as a monopoly, but that prevent firms from engaging in practices that go out of bounds. The antitrust laws ultimately regulate the "boundaries" of the "game of competition." Three implications follow. First, the antitrust laws and intellectual property laws are based on similar policy tradeoffs between static and dynamic effects. Second, the antitrust rules have, all along, been based on this tradeoff and not on the effects of business practices on static consumer welfare in relevant antitrust markets. Third, one unintended consequence of the increased role of economics in antitrust analysis is to overemphasize static considerations which the almost the sole focus of the economics literature that courts and competition authorities consider.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 47
Keywords: Antitust law, monopoly power, competition
JEL Classification: K21, L40Accepted Paper Series
Date posted: September 30, 2008 ; Last revised: May 17, 2009
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo7 in 0.375 seconds