dEjournals Nyitóoldal
Competitio
Online megjelent Aktuális Legtöbbet olvasott Archívum Keresés
Regisztráció Bejelentkezés

Competitio

Évf. 8 szám 1 (2009)
Tanulmányok

Economic Principles of Predatory (Exclusionary) Pricing in the US and in the EU their (mis)Application in Some Recent Competition Law Cases of the European Community Commission and the Court of First Instance

Megjelent:
2009-06-15
DOI Linkhttps://doi.org/10.21845/comp/2009/1/2
Szerző
Bara Zoltan
Megtekintés
PDF (Angol)
Kulcsszavak
competition policy predatory pricing Areeda-Turner Test AKZO Rule
Hogyan hivatkozzuk
Kiválasztott formátum: APA
Bara, Z. (2009). Economic Principles of Predatory (Exclusionary) Pricing in the US and in the EU their (mis)Application in Some Recent Competition Law Cases of the European Community Commission and the Court of First Instance. Competitio, 8(1), 26-45. https://doi.org/10.21845/comp/2009/1/2
Absztrakt

Predatory pricing is one of the most debated issue among the many possibly abusive behaviors of a dominant firm. The general prohibition of the abuse of a dominant power in the competition law is meant
to render more difficult to use that power but not to disable them to compete. The borderline between a rough but lawful competitive behavior of a dominant firm and the illegal abuse of the market power could sometimes be very narrow. One of that narrow line is associated with the so called predatory pricing or exclusionary pricing. One of the necessary preconditions for predatory pricing is that the firm is required to set the price below costs. But could it be a sufficient condition as well? Before the AKZO-case lawyers and economists seemed to agree that predatory pricing requires a second phase, after the dominant firm successfully got its prey in the first phase, the recoupment phase during which the dominant firm is able the regain all of his former losses occurred in the first phase. Since the AKZO-case, the Commission succeeded to convince Courts of the EU that it would be enough to make probable but not certain that there had to be a recoupment phase but we don’t have to wait until it really happens. Most of the economists still think that predatory pricing is meaningless without recoupment, and what is more important, it would be beneficial to the consumers during the first phase unless there is no certainty of a second phase.

Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) classifications: K21, L12, L41

Hivatkozások
  1. Areeda P. and Turner D. (1975): Predatory Pricing and Related Practices under Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Harvard Law Review, 88 (4), 697–733.
  2. Areeda, P. and H. Hovenkamp (2006): Antitrust Law. (2006 Supp.) Aspen Publishers.
  3. Baumol, W. (1996): Predation and the Logic of the Average Variable Cost Test. Journal of Law & Economics, 39 (1), 49–72.
  4. Beniot, J-P. (1984): Financially Constrained Entry in a Game with Incomplete Information. RAND Journal of Economics, 15 (4), 490–499.
  5. Bolton, P. and D. Scharfstein (1990): A theory of Predation Based on Agency Problems in Financial Contracting. e American Economic Review, 80 (1), 93–106.
  6. Bolton, P. and Brodley, J.F. and Riordan, M.H. (2000): Predatory Pricing: Strategic theory and Legal Policy. Georgetown Law Journal, Vol. 88, 2000, (the source of the quating is Weisman (2002).
  7. Bork, R. (1978): The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself. Basic Books, New York, 1978.
  8. Brodley, T. and Hay. T. (1981): Predatory Pricing: Competing Economic Theories and the Evolution of Legal Standards. Cornell Law Review, Vol. 738, 1981.
  9. Cabral, L. and M. Riordan (1994): The Learning Curve, Market Dominance, and Predatory Pricing. Econometrica, 62 (5), 1115–1140.
  10. Calvani, T. (2000): Predatory Pricing and State Below-cost Sales Statutes in the United States: An Analysis. Competition Bureau, Canada, 2000. Http: www.competitionbureau.gc.ca
  11. Calvani, T. and Siegfried, J. (eds.) (1988): Economic Analysis and Antitrust Law. Little Brown Publ., New York.
  12. Easterbrook, F. (1981): Predatory Strategies and Counterstrategies. Chicago Law Review, 48 (2).
  13. Edlin, A. (2002): Stopping Above-Cost Predatory Pricing. e Yale Law Journal, 111 (4), 941–991. (Source of quatation Weisman 2002.)
  14. Elhauge, E. (2003): Why Above-Cost Price Cuts to Drive out Entrants Are Not Predatory: And the Implications for Defining Costs and Market Power. e Yale Law Journal, 112 (4), 681–827. (Source of quatation
  15. Weisman 2002.)
  16. Fudenberg, D. and J.Tirole (1986): A “Signal-Jamming” theory of Predation. e RAND Journal of Economics, 17 (3), 366–376.
  17. Harrison, G.W. (1988): Predatory Pricing in a Multiple Market Experiment. A Note. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 9, 405–417.
  18. Hurwitz, J.D. and Kovacic, W.E. (1982): Judicial Analysis of Predation: The Emerging Trends. Vanderbilt Law Review, Vol. 63, 1982 (online version).
  19. Janssens, T. (2009): The Commission Guidance on Predation: A Cautious Step In the Right Direction? Global Competition Policy (online), Febr. 9. Art. (1)
  20. Jones, A. and Sufrin, B. (2007): EC Competition Law. Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford, Online Resource Centre.
  21. Joskow, P. and Klevorick, A. (1979): A Framework for Analyzing Predatory Pricing Policy. Yale Law Journal, Volume 89, 1979 (source of quotation Kobayashi 2000).
  22. Kobayashi, B. H. (2000): The Law and Economics of Predatory Pricing. In: Antitrust Law and Economics, Keith N. Hylton, ed., Edward Elgar Publishing.
  23. Kreps, D. and Wilson, R. (1982): Reputation and imperfect information. Journal of Economic Theory, 27 (2).
  24. Kreps, D., P.Milgrom, J. Roberts, and R.Wilson (1982): Rational Cooperation in the Finitely-Repeated Prisoners’ Dilemma. Journal of Economic eory, 27 (2), 245–52.
  25. Lang, J.T. and O’Donoghue, R. (2002): Defining Legitimate Competition: How to Clarify Pricing Abuses under Article 82EC. Fordham International Law Journal, vol. 26 (source of quotation Jones and Sufrin 2007).
  26. Leary, B. T., (2001): The Need for an Objective and Predictable Standards in the Law of Predation. Steptoe & Johnson and Analysis Group/Economics, Antitrust Conference, Washington, D.C., May 10, 2001.
  27. Loescher, M. L. (1980): Intrafirm Grants and the New Legitimation of Coercive Competition: The Areeda-Turner Rule in Perspective. Journal of Economic Issues, 14 (4),(Dec., 1980), 959–965.
  28. Marx, L. and G. Shaffer (1999): Predatory Accommodation: Below-Cost Pricing without Exclusion in Intermediate Goods Markets. The RAND Journal of Economics, 30 (1), 22–43.
  29. McGee, J., (1980): Predatory pricing revisited. Journal of Law and Economics, 23 (2).
  30. McKee, J., (1958): Predatory Price Cutting: The Standard Oil (N.J.) Case. Journal of Law and Economics, October
  31. Milgrom, P. and Roberts, D.J. (1982): Limit pricing and entry under incomlete information: an equilibrium analysis. Econometrica, 50 (2).
  32. Milgrom, P. and J. Roberts (1982): Predation, Reputation, and Entry Deterrence. Journal of Economic Theory, 27 (2), 280–312.
  33. Niels, G. and Ten Kate, A. (2000): Predatory Pricing Standards: Is there a Growing International Consensus? Antitrust Bulletin, Vol. 787.
  34. OECD (2008): Presenting Complex Economic Theories to Judges. Best Practice Roundtables, Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, Competition Committee, DAF/COMP(2008)31, December 2008.
  35. Ordover, Janusz A. (2008): Predatory pricing. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. Second Edition. Eds. Steven N. Durlauf and Lawrence E. Blume. Palgrave Macmillan. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online. Palgrave Macmillan. 24 February 2009 <http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/article?id=pde2008_P000147> doi:10.1057/9780230226203.1326
  36. Ordover, J. and G. Saloner (1989): Predation, Monopolization, and Antitrust. In: R. Schmalensee and R. D. Willig, (eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, 1, 538–596, North-Holland.
  37. Ritter, Cyril (2004): Beyond AKZO and Brooke Group: why the law of predatory pricing needs a radical rethink? Working Paper, Morrison & Foerster, Brussels.
  38. Phlips, L. and Moras, I.M. (1993): The Akzo Decision: A Case of Predatory Pricing? The Journal of Industrial Economics, 41 (3), (Sep., 1993), 315–321.
  39. Snyder, C. (1996): Negotiation and Renegotiation of Optimal Financial Contracts Under the Threat of Predation. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 44 (3), 325–343.
  40. Tarbell, I. (1904): History of the Standrad Oil Company. (Source of quotation Calvani 2000).
  41. Telser, L. (1966): Cut-throat competition and the long purse. Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 9., October.
  42. Tirole, J. (1988): Theory of Industrial Organization. The MIT Press, Cambridge MA.
  43. Weisman, D.L. (2002): The Law and Economics of Price Floors in Regulated Industries. The Antitrust Bulletin, XLVII (1), Spring.