De Economist

, Volume 166, Issue 1, pp 23–40 | Cite as

Economic Impact of Competition Policy: A Look Beyond Consumer Surplus

Article
  • 89 Downloads

Abstract

Competition authorities try to mitigate negative distortionary effects on the markets by tackling abuse of market power or cartels and by controlling mergers. This study attempts to assess the impact of these endeavours by going beyond calculations of lumpsum effects on consumer surplus. We revise the simulation of Van Sinderen and Kemp (Economist 156(4):365–385, 2008) who use a cut in income taxes as a modelling device to simulate the impact of anti cartel policies. Our approach avoids attributing effects caused purely by changes in taxation to market power and uses changes in the Lerner index as the impuls. We have updated the model to enable simulating the impact of competition policies on productivity and R&D in order to get a balanced view on the effects. We find that the re-distribution of surplus from producers to consumers supported by ACM in this new setting is likely to have a positive effect on productivity, GDP, wages and consumption, and a small positive effect on employment. This differs from the outcome of Van Sinderen and Kemp, who did not find a positive impact on productivity, due to an overestimation of the employment growth.

Keywords

Antitrust Competition law enforcement Efficiency Innovation Welfare effects 

JEL Codes

D61 L40 L50 

References

  1. Aghion, P., et al. (2009). The effects of entry on incumbent innovation and productivity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(1), 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aghion, P., Bloom, N., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., & Howitt, P. (2005). Competition and innovation: An inverted-U relationship. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120(2), 701–728.Google Scholar
  3. Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (1992). A model of growth through creative destruction. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 60, 323–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aghion, P., & Howitt, P. (2006). Joseph schumpeter lecture appropriate growth policy: A unifying framework. Journal of the European Economic Association, 4(2–3), 269–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boone, J. (2008). A new way to measure competition. The Economic Journal, 118(531), 1245–1261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brouwer, E., & van der Wiel, H. P. (2010). Competition and innovation: Pushing productivity up or down? CentER Discussion Paper, 2010.Google Scholar
  7. Browning, E. K. (1997). A neglected welfare cost of monopoly—and most other product market distortions. Journal of Public Economics, 66(1), 127–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chamberlin, E. (1933). The theory of monopolistic competition (Vol. 6). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cobb, C. W., & Douglas, P. H. (1928). A theory of production. The American Economic Review, 18(1), 139–165.Google Scholar
  10. CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis. Centraal economisch plan 2016 (2016)Google Scholar
  11. Crandall, R. W., & Winston, C. (2003). Does antitrust policy improve consumer welfare? Assessing the evidence. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 17(4), 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dierx, A., Ilzkovitz, F., Pataracchia, B., Ratto, M., Thum-Thysen, A., & Varga, J. (2017). Does EU competition policy support inclusive growth? Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 13(2), 225–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Donselaar, P., & Knoester, A. (1999). R&D-uitgaven van bedrijven: feiten en verklaringen. Ministerie van Economische Zaken, Directie Algemeen TechnologiebeleidGoogle Scholar
  14. Donselaar, P., & van Sinderen, J. (2000). MESEMET-2. Een uitbreiding en actualisering van het MESEMET-model, basisjaar 1997. The Hague: DGI&D, Working paper 2000/01, Ministry of Economic Affairs.Google Scholar
  15. Donselaar, P., Nieuwenhuijsen, H. R., van Sinderen, J., & Verbruggen, J. (2000). Economic effects of stimulating business R&D. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam.Google Scholar
  16. Draper, D. A. G. (1985). Exports of the manufacturing industry, an econometric analysis of the significance of capacity. De Economist, 133(3), 285–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frantz, R. (1992). X-efficiency and allocative efficiency: What have we learned? The American Economic Review, 82(2), 434–438.Google Scholar
  18. Frantz, R. S. (2013). X-efficiency: Theory, evidence and applications (Vol. 2). New York: Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
  19. Genakos, C. D., Valletti, T., & Verboven, F. (2017). Evaluating market consolidation in mobile communications (No. 12054). CEPR Discussion Papers.Google Scholar
  20. Griffith, R., Redding, S., & Van Reenen, J. (2004). Mapping the two faces of R&D: Productivity growth in a panel of OECD industries. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(4), 883–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Harberger, A. (1954). Monopoly and resource allocation. The American Economic Review 77–87.Google Scholar
  22. Ioannidis, E., & Schreyer, P. (1997). Technology and non-technology determinants of export share growth. OECD Economic Studies, 28(1997), 1.Google Scholar
  23. Jonsson, M. (2007). The welfare cost of imperfect competition and distortionary taxation. Review of Economic Dynamics, 10(4), 576–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kemp, R., de Kleijn, H., Lamboo, E., Leliefeld, D., Postema, B., & Wolthoff, M. (2014). Outcome ACM: Berekeningsmethode van de outcome van ACM en resultaten voor 2013. The Hague: ACM Working Paper.Google Scholar
  25. Leibenstein, H. (1966). Allocative efficiency vs.“X-efficiency”. The American Economic Review, 56, 392–415.Google Scholar
  26. Majumdar, S. (1995). X-efficiency in emerging competitive markets: The case of US telecommunications. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 26(1), 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Matheron, J. (2002). The welfare cost of monopolistic competition revisited. Economics Letters, 75(1), 129–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. McLure, C. E, Jr., & Thirsk, W. R. (1975). A simplified exposition of the Harberger Model I: Tax incidence. National Tax Journal, 28, 1–27.Google Scholar
  29. Nickell, S. J. (1996). Competition and corporate performance. Journal of political economy, 104(4), 724–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Petit, L. T., Kemp, R. G., & van Sinderen, J. (2015). Cartels and productivity growth: An empirical investigation of the impact of cartels on productivity in the netherlands. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 11(2), 501–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Robinson, J. (1933). The economics of imperfect competition (pp. 519–521). London: Macmillan and Co. Publisher.Google Scholar
  32. Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5, Part 2), S71–S102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Scherer, F., & Ross, D. (1990). Industrial market structure and economic performance. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s Academy for entrepreneurial leadership historical research reference in entrepreneurship Google Scholar
  34. Schwartzman, D. (1960). The burden of monopoly. Journal of Political Economy, 68(6), 627–630.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sjöström, T., & Weitzman, M. L. (1996). Competition and the evolution of efficiency. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 30(1), 25–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Van Bergeijk, P. A., van Hagen, G. H., de Mooij, R. A., & van Sinderen, J. (1997). Endogenizing technological progress: The MESEMET model. Economic Modelling, 14(3), 341–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Van Bergeijk, P. A. G., van Dijk, M. A., Haffner, R. C. G., van Hagen, G. H. A., de Mooij, R. A., & Waasdorp, P. M. (1995). Economic policy, technology and growth. The Hague: Ministry of Economic Affairs, Economic Policy Directorate.Google Scholar
  38. Van der Linden, R.M. (1997). Technologische innovatie en export. Ph.D. thesis, Erasmus University RotterdamGoogle Scholar
  39. Van der Noll, Rob, Baarsma, B., Rosenboom, N., & Weda, J. (2011). Anticipatie op kartel- en concentratietoezicht. Amsterdam: SEO Stichting Economisch OnderzoekGoogle Scholar
  40. Van Hagen, G.H.A. (1995). Kennis, technische vooruitgang en groei. Ph.D. thesis, Erasmus University Rotterdam and Ministry of Economic Affairs, The Hague.Google Scholar
  41. Van Sinderen, J. (1993). Taxation and economic growth: Some calculations with a macroeconomic semi-equilibrium model for the Dutch economy (MESEM). Economic Modelling, 10(3), 285–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van Sinderen, J., & Kemp, R. (2008). The economic effect of competition law enforcement: The case of the Netherlands. De Economist, 156(4), 365–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM)The HagueThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Erasmus University RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations