Review of Industrial Organization

, Volume 43, Issue 1–2, pp 41–62 | Cite as

The Effects of the Interstate Commerce Act on Transport Costs: Evidence from Wheat Prices



There is significant debate over the effect of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA) on the cost of rail transport to shippers. Taking price differences across locations as proxy for transport costs, we use data on wheat prices before and after the implementation of the ICA to see if the Act led to smaller differences in wheat prices across American cities relative to a control group of European cities. We find that the ICA had no effect on US transport costs; however, it reduced their volatility substantially. This evidence supports the view that the ICA helped stabilize cartel prices after a period of significant price wars.


Cartel Price wars Railroad Regulation Threshold regression 


  1. Aitchison, C. B. (1937). The evolution of the Interstate Commerce Act: 1887–1937. George Washington Law Review, 5(3), 289–403.Google Scholar
  2. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Balke, N. S., & Fomby, T. B. (1997). Threshold cointegration. International Economic Review, 38(3), 627–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benson, L. (1955). Merchants, farmers, and railroads. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Binder, J. J. (1985). Measuring the effects of regulation with stock price data. RAND Journal of Economics, 16(2), 167–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buck, S. (1921). The Agrarian Crusade. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Canjels, E., Prakash-Canjels, G., & Taylor, A. M. (2004). Measuring market integration: Foreign exchange arbitrage and the gold standard. Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(4), 868–882.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dennis, S. M. (1999). Using spatial equilibrium models to analyze transportation rates: An application to steam coal in the United States. Transportation Research Part E: Logistics and Transportation Review, 35(3), 145–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Donaldson, D. (Forthcoming). Railroads of the Raj: Estimating the impact of transportation infrastructure. American Economic Review.Google Scholar
  10. Ejrnaes, M., & Persson, K. G. (2000). Market integration and transport costs in France 1825–1903. Explorations in Economic History, 37(2), 149–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fogel, Robert W. (1964). Railroads and American economic growth: Essays in econometric history (Vol. 296). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar
  12. Gilligan, T. W., Marshall, W. J., & Weingast, B. R. (1990). The economic incidence of the Interstate Commerce Act of 1987: A theoretical and empirical analysis of the short-haul pricing constraint. RAND Journal of Economics, 21(2), 189–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodwin, B. K., & Grennes, T. J. (1998). Tsarist Russia and the world wheat market. Explorations in Economic History, 35(4), 405–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hansen, B. E. (1997). Inference in TAR models. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics and Econometrics, 2(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  15. Hansen, B. E., & Seo, B. (2002). Testing for two-regime threshold cointegration in vector error correction models. Journal of Econometrics, 110(2), 293–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jacks, D. S. (2005). Intra- and international commodity market integration in the Atlantic economy, 1800–1913. Explorations in Economic History, 42(3), 381–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jacks, D. S. (2006). What drove 19th century commodity market integration? Explorations in Economic History, 43(3), 383–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kolko, G. (1965). Rails and regulation, 1877–1918. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. MacAvoy, P. W. (1965). The economic effects of regulation: The trunk-line railroad cartels and the interstate commerce commission before 1900. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Meyer, B. D. (1995). Natural and quasi-natural experiments in economics. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 13(2), 151–161.Google Scholar
  21. Miller, G. (1971). Railroads and the Granger laws. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  22. O’Rourke, K. H., Taylor, A. M., & Williamson, J. G. (1996). Factor price convergence in the late nineteenth century. International Economic Review, 37(3), 499–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Persson, K. G. (2004). Mind the gap! Transport costs and price convergence in the nineteenth century Atlantic economy. European Review of Economic History, 8(2), 125–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Porter, R. H. (1983). A study of cartel stability: The Joint Executive Committee, 1880–1886. Bell Journal of Economics, 14(2), 301–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Prager, R. A. (1989). Using stock price data to measure the effects of regulation: The Interstate Commerce Act and the railroad industry. RAND Journal of Economics, 20(2), 280–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ripley, W. Z. (1906). The trunkline rate system: A distance tariff. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 20(2), 183–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Saxonhouse, G. R. (1976). Estimated parameters as dependent variables. American Economic Review, 66(1), 178–183.Google Scholar
  28. Shiue, C. H., & Keller, W. (2007). Markets in China and Europe on the eve of the industrial revolution. American Economic Review, 97(4), 1189–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Spann, R. M., & Erickson, E. W. (1970). The economics of railroading: The beginning of cartelization and regulation. Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, 1(2), 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ulen, T. S. (1980). The market for regulation: The ICC from 1887 to 1920. American Economic Review, 70(2), 306–310.Google Scholar
  31. Zerbe, R. (1980). The costs and benefits of early regulation of the railroads. The Bell Journal of Economics, 11(1), 343–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics1285 University of OregonEugeneUSA
  2. 2.National Bureau of Economic ResearchEugeneUSA

Personalised recommendations