2012•The Antitrust BulletinRequires access

Good Riddance to Market Definition?

Duncan C. Cameron, Mark A. Glick, David G. Mangum

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

Professor Kaplow contends that the use of market definition and market shares in antitrust analysis is fundamentally flawed and should be abandoned. We challenge that conclusion by showing that it is based on a misperception of the purpose and practice of market definition, an overstatement of the flaws of market definition, and an overstatement of the workability of the direct measurement of market power that Professor Kaplow proposes as a replacement. Ultimately, market definition is a useful, albeit imperfect, tool that requires care to apply properly. In our view, market definition is a valuable part of a full-blown competitive analysis that provides an analytical construct—a multipart test—that helps regulators, judges, juries, and advocates make sense of dynamic conditions, evaluate the forces at play, and reach a reasoned decision.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

Professor Kaplow contends that the use of market definition and market shares in antitrust analysis is fundamentally flawed and should be abandoned. We challenge that conclusion by showing that it is based on a misperception of the purpose and practice of market definition, an overstatement of the flaws of market definition, and an overstatement of the workability of the direct measurement of market power that Professor Kaplow proposes as a replacement. Ultimately, market definition is a useful, albeit imperfect, tool that requires care to apply properly. In our view, market definition is a valuable part of a full-blown competitive analysis that provides an analytical construct—a multipart test—that helps regulators, judges, juries, and advocates make sense of dynamic conditions, evaluate the forces at play, and reach a reasoned decision.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

Professor Kaplow contends that the use of market definition and market shares in antitrust analysis is fundamentally flawed and should be abandoned. We challenge that conclusion by showing that it is based on a misperception of the purpose and practice of market definition, an overstatement of the flaws of market definition, and an overstatement of the workability of the direct measurement of market power that Professor Kaplow proposes as a replacement. Ultimately, market definition is a useful, albeit imperfect, tool that requires care to apply properly. In our view, market definition is a valuable part of a full-blown competitive analysis that provides an analytical construct—a multipart test—that helps regulators, judges, juries, and advocates make sense of dynamic conditions, evaluate the forces at play, and reach a reasoned decision.

Key concepts: Market definition, Market power, Imperfect, Economics, Construct (python library), Market analysis, Relevant market, Merger guidelines

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Good Riddance to Market Definition? — Research Paper | ScholarLens