Center for Business and Economic Research - Ball State University


CBER Data Center
Projects and PublicationsEconomic IndicatorsWeekly CommentaryCommunity Asset InventoryManufacturing Scorecard

About

Commentaries are published weekly and distributed through the Indianapolis Business Journal and many other print and online publications. Disclaimer

RSS Feed

Disclaimer

The views expressed in these commentaries do not reflect those of Ball State University or the Center for Business and Economic Research.

Recent

Two Key Economic Lessons in One BillHoosiers face trade-offs and opportunity costs in the wake of SEA1.

Time to Fix Economic Development PolicyAllocating tax dollars to land development won’t cause economic growth.

The Unanticipated Effects of SB1Businesses, governments and households may all feel the effects.

The Stupidest of PoliciesThis whipsawing of tariff rates has unnerved financial markets, which on Wednesday, were toying with a liquidity crisis.

View archives

Top Tags

jobs and employment 261
economics 201
state and local government 188
education 186
economic development 171
indiana 171
budget and spending 145
taxes 144
law and public policy 142
workforce and human capital 139
Browse all tags
Reporter / Admin Login

August 25, 2013

A New Antitrust Case

Last week, the Department of Justice announced that it would try to block the merger of two large airlines: American Airlines and U.S. Airways. This will be an interesting business case, and it offers a glimpse into one of the great public policy innovations of the past couple centuries: American anti-trust law.

In the middle decades of the 19th century, many private businesses around the world grew to astonishing sizes. While there were previously large companies such as Hudson's Bay or East India Company, they had always before been state-sponsored. The trend of bigness was seized upon by Karl Marx who believed (wrongly) there was no limit to firm growth. It inspired much of his writing.

In America, the growth of big steel producers and railroads also animated populist groups such as the Grange Halls, which dotted rural areas. But, the American worries had nothing to do with highfalutin and pretentious notions of Marxian dialectic materialism. The problem with big businesses in America was that they were colluding to fix prices for grain shipment.

Unsurprisingly, price fixing didn't sit well with many Americans, including Senator John Sherman, the younger brother of William Tecumseh Sherman, well-known for his ‘urban renewal’ work in Atlanta. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 explicitly outlawed two firms fixing prices or conspiring to monopolize a market. It was an elegant piece of legislation, crafted in only a few hundred words.

Over the next sixty years, two more major anti-trust laws were added, which effectively outlawed a range of business behaviors that limited trade. The most important of these was the 1913 Clayton Act outlawing mergers that substantially reduced competition. So, last week’s suit against the American Airlines and U.S. Airways is based upon a 100-year-old law.

Over the same time period, economists were busy developing a set of mathematical models that predicted when and how mergers could lead to the twin evils of monopolization: higher prices and lower production. This is a splendid example of the practical use of this sort of formal modeling. The math in these models allowed economists to compile hundreds of cases of mergers and estimate exactly how big the merged firms would have to be before the monopoly problem arose. This remains and active and fruitful area of research today.

Among the insights from this research is that this airline merger would lead to a very concentrated market, with four firms commanding 80 percent of the market. Strong data from literally hundreds of studies suggests that level of concentration would very likely to lead to monopoly pricing. That evidence and a very lengthy history of antitrust violations in the airline industry led the Department of Justice to seek to stop the merger.

I won’t predict the final outcome, but this is a good example where decades of thoughtful economic data collection and research (almost exclusively performed by economics and law professors) provided the Department of Justice the tools to protect consumers and competing businesses from monopoly behaviour.

Link to this commentary: https://commentaries.cberdata.org/692/a-new-antitrust-case

Tags: business, prices and inflation, transportation and logistics, law and public policy, regulation, data, monopoly


About the Author

Michael Hicks cberdirector@bsu.edu

Michael J. Hicks, PhD, is the director of the Center for Business and Economic Research and the George and Frances Ball distinguished professor of economics in the Miller College of Business at Ball State University. Note: The views expressed here are solely those of the author, and do not represent those of funders, associations, any entity of Ball State University, or its governing body.

© Center for Business and Economic Research, Ball State University

About Ball State CBER Data Center

Ball State CBER Data Center is one-stop shop for economic data including demographics, education, health, and social capital. Our easy-to-use, visual web tools offer data collection and analysis for grant writers, economic developers, policy makers, and the general public.

Ball State CBER Data Center (cberdata.org) is a product of the Center for Business and Economic Research at Ball State University. CBER's mission is to conduct relevant and timely public policy research on a wide range of economic issues affecting the state and nation. Learn more.

Terms of Service

Center for Business and Economic Research

Ball State University • Whitinger Business Building, room 149
2000 W. University Ave.
Muncie, IN 47306-0360
Phone:
765-285-5926
Email:
cber@bsu.edu
Website:
www.bsu.edu/cber
Facebook:
www.facebook.com/BallStateCBER
Twitter:
www.twitter.com/BallStateCBER
Close