Interpreting Rising Concentration: The Case of Beer
Interpreting Rising Concentration: The Case of Beer
复制标题
解读浓度上升：以啤酒为例
DOI：
10.1086/296223
复制
发表时间：
1984
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
W. Lynk
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. Lynk
尽管在概念上区分市场支配力的事实和市场集中度的计算方面取得了相当大的长期进展，但反垄断诉讼方--司法部、联邦贸易委员会（FTC）和私人诉讼方--继续把重点放在界定“市场”、计算市场份额和计算集中度上。实际操作的假设几乎总是垄断或市场力量与集中正相关。其他抵消特征是否也与高度集中有关，通常很少考虑。反对自动谴责集中度提高（例如通过横向合并）的最常被引用的考虑是，成本、市场支配力和集中度可能都是共同相关的。经济分析表明，如果较高的集中度带来了较低的行业成本（是由或导致），那么它也可能带来积极的总收益，即使反垄断关注的行业集中度侧重于市场力量-企业限制产量和提高价格的能力。除其他外，酿酒业一直是这一关切的主要目标，因为它的高度集中和不断上升。本文概述了两种不同的解释，这种变化的产业结构：竞争性扩张的更有效的啤酒和反竞争排斥同样有效的，但规模较小的啤酒。实证分析表明，竞争是解释啤酒市场结构变化的较好假设。
Despite considerable long-term progress in distinguishing conceptually between the fact of market power and the calculation of market concentration,' antitrust claimants-the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and private litigants-continue to place substantial emphasis on defining a "market," computing market shares, and calculating measures of concentration. The operating supposition is virtually always that monopoly or market power is positively associated with concentration. Whether other, offsetting characteristics are also associated with high concentration ordinarily receives less, if any, consideration. The most often-cited consideration weighing against an automatic condemnation of increased concentration (say, through horizontal merger) is that costs, market power, and concentration may all be jointly related. Economic analysis suggests that if higher concentration brings with it (is caused by or causes) lower industry costs, then it may also bring positive total benefits even if Antitrust concern with industry concentration focuses on market power-the ability of firms to restrict output and raise price. The brewing industry, among others, has been a major target of this concern because of its high and rising concentration. This paper sketches two alternative explanations for this change in industry structure: competitive expansion by the more efficient brewers and anticompetitive exclusion of equally efficient but smaller brewers. Empirical analysis indicates that competition is the better hypothesis in explaining changes in the structure of the beer market.