A game is characterised by regulations stipulating such things as its participants and the actions they may take. Oligopoly games such as Cournot, Bertrand and assorted auction theoretical accounts are games in which rivals choose monetary values, measures, or commands. The result of a one shooting game is a Nash Equilibrium. Specifically, Nash Equilibrium is a set of actions for all of the participants, such that each has no inducement to divert given that the challengers ‘ actions. A rival ‘s best response map points out its optimum action for any set of actions taken by its challengers.
When two or more rivals are merged so their best response maps are changed and the incorporate rivals give rise to one-sided effects by internalising the competition between them. Non unifying rivals operate on unaffected best response maps, and they react consequently with those maps to alterations in the incorporate houses ‘ actions.
Models concentrating on one-sided effects were known many old ages ago but those theoretical accounts were non widely used. However, economic experts started using the game theory believing for competition policy and theoretical accounts concentrating on one-sided effects were gained acknowledgment. In add-on, advancement in econometrics, economic theory and computing machine scientific discipline allowed the growing of a new field known as Applied Competition Policy[ 1 ]. After the release of the 1992 US Horizontal Merger Guidelines[ 2 ], high purpose was paid to one-sided effects from horizontal amalgamations and many US amalgamation instances over the past 15 old ages have been based on one-sided effects.
After their release, “ amalgamation simulation ” is a widely used method to do quantitative anticipations of one-sided competitory effects[ 3 ]. The chief thought is to foretell the possible effects of a amalgamation given that it is applied the same, well-specified theoretical account of competitory interaction before and after the amalgamation.[ 4 ]Simulation computes the one-sided monetary value effects of amalgamations as per centum alterations in equilibrium monetary values between the pre- and post-merger markets, taking into history market portions, efficiencies, and other cardinal characteristics of a dealing and presuming the absence of obvious collusion between rivals.
The quantitative techniques in competition policy are widely used, particularly in the European Union. The tool chest of quantitative techniques can be divided in two classs. The first class, known as empirical reduced-form analysis, consists of all the statistical methods that can be used to supply empirical groundss for anticompetitive actions. Such methods are regression analysis, factor analysis, correlativity analysis, Granger causality and cointegration trials.[ 5 ]The nature and quality of the available informations, every bit good as the characteristics of a instance, drama of import function for the pick of the appropriate technique. In the 2nd class, known as the empirical structural-form analysis, the quantitative analysis is driven by an economic theoretical account. The analyst should supply an economic theoretical account of the behavior of economic agents and to measure the external and/or proficient constrains that they must cover with. The standard what class to take is the information handiness. However, the two classs of techniques are complements instead than replacements.
For the coursework, a quantitative structural analysis will be followed for amalgamation simulation. The structural process is a tool to mensurate the effects of factors like market size, figure and assortment of merchandises, figure and heterogeneousness of agents and so on. It is besides a method to prove the cogency and the hardiness of associations between these factors and measure the different issues. For the structural process, we assume that we have a inactive oligopoly with differentiated merchandises as most of the modern economic analysis is based on this general instance. The process is divided in three stairss: specify and gauge a demand theoretical account, stipulate a supply theoretical account and run the counterfactuals.
Measure 1: Specification of the demand theoretical account
We have the monthly informations, for the period September 2002-December 2010, on mean monetary values and figure of riders of paths between the South-East of England and the top five European finishs. First, we have to cipher the market portions of the companies before the amalgamation. For case, the market portion of Easytrip is calculated as:
s_easytrip = q_easytrip / q_all.
s_royalair = q_royalair / q_all and
s_other = 1- s_easytrip – s_royalair
We assume that the market portion Si of company I is relative to the market portion of others companies by a factor Lolo harmonizing to:
Si = yi * s0
The factor Lolo is called the “ public-service corporation ” of the company I and depends on the quality and the cost of the merchandise. The logarithm of y1 ( lny1=Y1 ) is a map of the difference between the unknown pecuniary value of the “ quality ” ( the parametric quantity Bi ) and the cost of the merchandise:
Y1 = lny1 = bi – a*pi
Where the coefficient I± shows the consequence of monetary value and we will gauge it. In other words, the coefficient I± is the exchange rate between monetary value and quality.
We know that yi = si/s0
So, lnyi = lnsi – lns0 = & gt ; Yi = lnsi – lns0
Having cipher the Y1 for Easytrip and Y2 for Royalair, we run the two arrested developments in Stata by utilizing the “ restraint bids ” :
restraint define 1 [ y1 ] p_easytrip= [ y2 ] p_royalair
sureg ( y1 p_easytrip ) ( y2 p_royalair ) , restraint ( 1 ) little dfk
The arrested development bids are:
reg Y1 p_easytrip and
reg Y2 p_royalair
By the two arrested developments we will happen the calculators of Bi, bj and I± . The I± will be the same because of the constrain that we used. We use the estimated “ I± ” to cipher the ain monetary value snap, the cross-price snap and the recreation ratio. The ain monetary value snap Iµii of demand for merchandise I shows the comparative alteration of demand for merchandise I because of a 1 % alteration in its monetary value and is given by:
Iµii = -I±*pi* ( 1-si )
The cross monetary value snap Iµij of demand for merchandise I with regard to the monetary value of merchandise J shows the comparative alteration of demand for merchandise I because of a 1 % alteration in the monetary value of merchandise J and it is given by:
Iµij = a*pj*si
The recreation ratio shows us the per centum of gross revenues lost of one merchandise and captured by the other merchandise because of an addition in monetary value of the first merchandise. It is given by:
Dij = ( pi*si ) / ( pj* ( 1-sj ) )
Measure 2: Specification of the supply theoretical account
For this measure, it is of import to stipulate the type of competition. We assume that companies compete on monetary values. So, we have Bertrand competition. First, we calculate the fringy costs for both merchandises utilizing the parametric quantity I± obtained in measure 1. The border for merchandise I is given by:
myocardial infarction = 1/ ( I±* ( 1-si ) )
The fringy costs for merchandise I is given by:
curie = pi – myocardial infarction = pi – 1/ ( I±* ( 1-si ) )
Measure 3: Run the Counterfactuals
In measure 3 we want to compare the borders before collusion with the border after collusion. Furthermore, we want to see if the monetary values after the amalgamation will increase or non. Under the premise of collusion, the border under collusion of merchandise I is given by:
Mic = 1/ ( I±*s0 )
The monetary value under collusion of company I is given by:
Pic = Mic + curie
For each company, we compare the monetary values before and after the collusion and we check if monetary values have increased after the amalgamation.
We will show the information of the first 10 periods. Table 1 shows the market portions of Easytrip, Royalair and the remainder companies before the amalgamation.
Table 1: MARKET SHARES
For case, Easytrip had 17 % , Royalair had 25 % and the other companies had 59 % market portion for the period 1 ( September 2002 ) . In Stata, we run the arrested development and the tabular array presents the consequences ( for the bids see appendix ) .
Table 2: Arrested development RESULTS
P & gt ; |t|
For each company:
lns_Easytrip = lns_other + 9.15 – 0.19*p_Easytrip = & gt ; Y1 = 9.15- 0.19*p_easytrip
lns_Royalair = lns_other + 5.97 – 0.19*p_Royalair = & gt ; Y2 = 5.97 – 0.19*p_royalair
We can utilize I± = 0.19 to calculate the own-price and cross monetary value snaps of both companies. Table 3 shows the ain monetary value and cross monetary value snaps and the recreation ratio. For convenience, Easytrip Company is symbolized by the figure 1 and Royalair Company by the figure 2, severally. For case, e11 is the ain monetary value snap of Easytrip Company. The cross monetary value snap e12 shows the comparative alteration of demand for Easytrip because of a 1 % alteration in the monetary value of Royalair.
Table 3: OWN, CROSS PRICE ELASTICITIES AND DIVERSION RATIO
From the table 3 we see that a 1 % rise in monetary value of Easytrip consequences in 8.3 % lessening in demand for Easytrip. Furthermore, a 1 % rise in monetary value of Royalair consequences in 5.49 % lessening in demand for Royalair. In add-on, the cross monetary value snaps are positive because Easytrip and Royalair companies sell replacements merchandises. A monetary value rise of one merchandise will ensue in demand addition of the other merchandise. In peculiar, a 1 % alteration in the monetary value of Royalair consequences in 1.22 % alteration of demand for Easytrip. A 1 % alteration in the monetary value of Easytrip consequences in 2.45 % alteration of demand for Royalair. Finally, D12=0.31 shows that 31 % of gross revenues lost by Easytrip due to its monetary value rise that is captured by the Royalair. Respectively, D21=0.21 shows that 21 % of gross revenues lost by Royalair due to its monetary value rise that is captured by the Easytrip.
In table 4 the consequences for the borders and the fringy costs for both companies should look as follows:
Table 4: Margin AND MARGINAL COSTS
Under the premise of collusion, the border and the monetary values should look as follows:
Table 5: Margin AND PRICES AFTER THE MERGER
As we said in debut, amalgamation simulation is a technically demanding method to foretell the one-sided effects of a proposed amalgamation on monetary values. It is a method that combines demand snaps with an premise about the nature of competition. Merger simulation is based on well-established economic theory like econometric theory, theory of consumer demand and oligopoly theory. Besides, the implicit in premises are clearly laid out and frequently can be tested. For case, demand theoretical account and Nash-Bertrand premise can be tested. In add-on, it is a method that can be replicated. A 3rd party following the same stairss can make the same consequences and although there are many patterning picks, these picks are to the full described. In add-on, amalgamation simulation involves picks and for that ground difference about those picks may develop between opposite experts. For that ground, both parties normally have experts. Furthermore, amalgamation simulation is a technique which can be used to measure the effects of amalgamations on co-ordinated effects[ 6 ]. Davis ( 2005 ) and Sabbatini ( 2006 ) claim that the methods that are used to analyse one-sided effects in amalgamations can besides be enlightening about the manner a alteration in market construction has an consequence on the inducement to organize.[ 7 ],[ 8 ]In Europe, such an attack is accepted by the legal environment since the amalgamation of the Airtours with First Choice in 1999 was blocked because of co-ordinated effects.[ 9 ]
On the other manus, governments are cautious in the usage of the consequences of amalgamation simulations as grounds. First, the consequences of amalgamation simulation are based on the correct and dependable appraisal of the nature of demand, the nature of costs and the premise made about the nature of competition. If one of these factors does non accurately indicate economic behavior in the industry, so the consequences of the amalgamation simulation are non valuable. Equally far as the appraisal of demand snaps is concerned, many proficient issues can be raised because long data series are required. The nature of competition is besides really strong premise which must to be justified by other grounds on the industry. For case, if we assume Bertrand competition so grounds should demo that the cardinal strategic variable is monetary value. One manner of guaranting whether the estimated demand snaps and the nature of competition reflect consumer and house behavior in the industry is to compare the price-cost borders estimated in the amalgamation simulation with the existent price-cost borders.[ 10 ]If these are similar, so this means that the consequences of the amalgamation simulation are utile. The nature of costs is hard every bit good to be estimated. It is of import to take into history the proficient features of the production procedure like for case the possible diseconomies of graduated table and changeless marginal costs.
Furthermore, amalgamation simulations are chiefly used to foretell the short-term monetary value and end product effects[ 11 ]but disregard to foretell the non-quantifiable and long-term competitory effects.[ 12 ]Competition depends on a complicated coordination mechanism for economic behavior because it leads to allocative efficiency ( short-run public assistance effects ) , advanced efficiency ( inducements to introduce and copy ; mid-term public assistance effects ) , adaptative efficiency ( maintaining the economic system flexible sing altering environments ; evolutionary public assistance effects ; long-run public assistance effects ) , consumer sovereignty ( manufacturers are induced to set their supply harmonizing to the penchants of the consumers ) and contributes to economic freedom ( broad public assistance effects ) . Inter alia, Scheffman ( 2004 ) , Bengtsson ( 2005 ) and Walker ( 2005, 487-490 ) reference that amalgamation simulation methods can barely include even the short-term non-quantifiable and non-price factors of competition like i.e. barriers to entry and issue, purchaser power, trade name, publicity and arrangement effects, shelf infinite competition, scheme effects on/of market participants, etc.[ 13 ]These effects are non included in amalgamation simulations because they can non be modelled and/or quantified and non because these effects are less of import for real-world public assistance. However, the disregard of some of import public assistance effects may ensue to faulty determinations.
In add-on, another disadvantage of amalgamation simulation methods is that the grades of permutation are non included in the analysis. The higher the degree of permutation is, the higher the internalisation of permutation effects is due to an addition in monetary value of one house.
Finally, amalgamation simulation theoretical accounts are non inexpensive instruments. In a monopolization instance where the effects of a amalgamation are obvious or in a instance where no competition concerns originate at all, the costs of amalgamation simulation theoretical accounts are likely to transcend the benefits ( determination betterment ) . However, if the consequence of a amalgamation proposal is instead ill-defined after a more general structural analysis, so extra analysis like simulation consequences are more likely to give more benefits than costs.
There are alternate methods which are besides used in order to gauge the effects of a amalgamation on competition. To get down with, the competition governments have widely used the HHI Herfindahl – Hirschman Index to gauge the likely impact of a amalgamation. The chief thought is that a high HHI is associated with lower public assistance and particularly with lower consumer public assistance. However, there is no definite correlativity between the HHI and the consumer public assistance and amalgamation governments recognize HHI as an imperfect method to foretell the existent result of a amalgamation.[ 14 ]
Alternate attack is to utilize natural experiments or “ daze analysis ”[ 15 ]when applied to monetary values. Both methods are similar to the monetary value correlativity but are more careful about the beginning of the fluctuation in the information in order to place replaceability. Shock analysis observes the reaction of the monetary values of other goods because of an exogenic daze on the monetary value of one good, the one we investigate[ 16 ]. It is a rather simple technique to acquire the magnitude of ain and cross-price snaps of demand without utilizing a more complicate econometric analysis.
Furthermore, the critical loss analysis is chiefly used to specify the markets. The chief thought is to gauge how much the conjectural monopolizer ‘s gross revenues would hold to fall in order to do the hypothesized monetary value addition unprofitable. This benchmark can be compared with the empirical grounds. If the empirical grounds shows that the gross revenues will diminish more than the critical loss benchmark, so the hypothesized addition in monetary value will be unprofitable and the relevant market is wider. However, critical loss analysis can be used to measure the one-sided effects of a amalgamation.
Furthermore, price/concentration analysis is a method that examines the relationship between the monetary value and the degree of concentration. It is a utile tool for market definition and to measure the likely consequence of a amalgamation on monetary values. The thought is that higher concentration in a market might be associated with greater market power. The market power consequences in higher monetary values, so higher degrees of concentration may take to higher monetary values.
Finally, as we said, one-sided effects are more likely to be concern in horizontal amalgamations ( amalgamations of houses that produce close replacements ) . Switch overing analysis is a method by which the grade of replaceability between two merchandises can be assessed. The thought is to measure the intimacy of competition between the merchandises of the meeting houses by analysing consumer behavior.[ 17 ]“ Diversion ratio ” , that we calculated to the step1 of the simulation, can be considered as a expression to stipulate the grade of permutation.
It is of import to see the graphs and to construe them. Graph 1 represents the monetary values of Easytrip and Royalair companies. As we can see the monetary values move together really closely. The fact that the monetary value series move together over clip is a strong index that the two companies are in the same market.
GRAPH 1: Monetary value OF BOTH COMPANIES BEFORE MERGER
In graphs 2 and 3, we can see the difference in monetary values of Easytrip and Royalair before and after the amalgamation. It is clear that the monetary values of both companies, after the amalgamation, will be higher.
GRAPH 2: Monetary value OF EASYTRIP COMPANY BEFORE AND AFTER THE MERGER
GRAPH 3: Monetary value OF ROYALAIR COMPANY BEFORE AND AFTER THE MERGER
In graph 4, we can see the borders of both companies before amalgamation are much less than the border of the merged company. Besides, from the tabular array, we conclude that after the amalgamation the merged house will increase the monetary values and accordingly the border every bit good.
GRAPH 4: Margin OF COMPANIES BEFORE MERGER AND MARGIN OF THE MERGED Firm
Table 6: Average Percentage Change IN PRICES AND MARGINS
Observed behavior: Bertrand
Fake behavior: Amalgamation
Average % monetary value addition after the amalgamation
So, we have two merchandises that are correlated and are replacements. The consequences of amalgamation simulation show that monetary values and borders of both companies will increase. The borders before amalgamation were 13 % and 18 % and after the amalgamation were 36 % and 42 % for Easytrip and Royalair, severally. The mean per centum monetary value addition will be 5 % for Easytrip and 8 % for Royalair. These are the one-sided effects of the amalgamation. However, there are competitory constrains that may deter the incorporate houses to raise the monetary values. Such competitory constrains are low barriers to entry like merchandise distinction, economic systems of graduated table, capacity constrains and absolute cost advantages. The inquiry raised about the co-ordinated effects. We have four large houses ( of import market portion ) and some smaller. Royalair is the most aggressive company in the market ( the lowest monetary values ) and Easytrip has the highest mean monthly grosss. Besides, Easytrip is the 2nd and Royalair is the 3rd company with the highest mean monthly figure of rider flights. After the amalgamation, UpUGo, BMG and the smaller companies will confront less competition. The market construction becomes more symmetric and it is easier for the non merged companies to conspire. However, higher concentration does non needfully ensue in higher monetary values. Equally far as the possible entry is concerned, air hose market has rather high barriers to entry. Sunk costs, advertisement, control of resources ( i.e. slots ) , and clients loyality are some of the possible barriers to entry in air hose industry.
To sum up, the most “ aggressive ” company – Royalair – wants to be merged with Easytrip. Applying amalgamation simulation, both companies will raise the monetary values above 5 % after the amalgamation. The non incorporate houses may increase the monetary values as Royalair merged with Easytrip and it is potentially easier to conspire. The entry barriers are rather high and possible competition is non distinct. Harmonizing to these indicants, the amalgamation should non be cleared because it may be expected to ensue in significant decrease of competition within a market or markets in the United Kingdom.
Bengtsson, C. ( 2005 ) , Imitating the Effect of Oracle ‘s Takeover of PeopleSoft, in: P. A. G. van Bergeijk & A ; E. Kloosterhuis ( explosive detection systems. ) , Modeling European Mergers. Theory, Competition Policy and Case Studies, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 133-149
Bishop, S. and M. Walker ( 2002 ) : The Economicss of EC Competition Law: Concepts, Applications and Measurement, 2nd ed. , London: Sweet & A ; Maxwell
Budzinsky, O. and I. Ruhmer, 2009, Merger Simulation in Competition Policy: A Survey, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Vol. 6, issue 2
Davis, P. ( 2005 ) , The consequence of local competition on admittance monetary values in the U.S. gesture image exhibition market. Journal of Law and Economics 48: 677-707.
Davis P. and E. Garces, ( 2010 ) , Quantitative Techniques for Competition and Antitrust Policy, Princeton University Press.
Ivaldi, Jullien, Rey, Seabright and Tirole ( 2003 ) , “ The Economicss of Unilateral Effects ” , IDEI Interim Report for DG Competition of the European Commission.
Lexecon, An Introduction to Quantitative Techniques in Competition Analysis, London, 2005.
Farrell, J. ( 2006 ) , Complexity, Diversity, and Antitrust, in: The Antitrust Bulletin, Vol. 51 ( 1 ) , pp. 165-173.
Sabbatini, P. ( 2006 ) . How to imitate the coordinate consequence of a amalgamation. Collana Temi vitamin E Problemi, Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato.
Scheffman, D. ( 2004 ) , Whither Merger Simulation? ,
hypertext transfer protocol: //www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/040129scheffman.pdf.
Walker, M. ( 2005 ) , The Potential for Significant Inaccuracies in Merger Simulation Models, in: Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Vol. 1 ( 3 ) , pp. 473-496.
Werden G. , L. Foeb and D. Scheffman. “ A Daubert Discipline for amalgamation simulation ” , 2004