Review of Industrial Organization

, Volume 15, Issue 3, pp 205–217 | Cite as

Effects of Assumed Demand Form on Simulated Postmerger Equilibria

  • Philip Crooke
  • Luke Froeb
  • Steven Tschantz
  • Gregory J Werden


This paper investigates the properties of four demand systems used to predict the effects of differentiated products mergers: the Almost Ideal Demand System (AIDS), logit, linear, and log-linear (constant elasticity). In Monte Carlo experiments, these demand systems yield significantly different predictions, although all are calibrated to the same the same, randomly generated, premerger relative quantities and demand elasticities. The predicted price increase is greatest with log-linear demand, followed by the AIDS. The linear and logit demand forms result in significantly lower postmerger prices. The results highlight the importance of the inherent higher-order properties of demand systems, i.e., their “curvature.”

Mergers antitrust AIDS logit Computed Nash Equilibria 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson, Simon, Andre de Palma, and Jacques-Francois Thisse (1992) Discrete Choice Theory of Product Differentiation. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Akiva, Moshe, and Steven Lerman (1985) Discrete Choice Analysis: Theory and Application to TravelDemand. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Box, G. E. P. and D. R. Cox (1964) 'An Analysis of Transformations', Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 26, 211–243.Google Scholar
  4. Deaton, Angus, and John Muelbauer (1980a) Economics and Consumer Behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Deaton, Angus, and John Muelbauer (1980b) 'An Almost Ideal Demand System', American Economic Review, 70, 312–326.Google Scholar
  6. Froeb, Luke, and Gregory J. Werden (1996) 'Simulating the Effects of Mergers Among Noncooperative Oligopolists', in Hal Varian (ed.), Computational Economics and Finance: Modeling and Analysis with Mathematica. New York: Springer-Verlag/Telos.Google Scholar
  7. Gorman, W. M. (1995) 'Two Stage Budgeting', in C. Blackorby and A. F. Shorrocks (eds.), Seperability and Aggregation: Collected Works of W.M.Gorman. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hausman, Jerry A., and Gregory K. Leonard (1997) 'Economic Analysis of Differentiated Products Mergers Using Real World Data', George Mason Law Review, 5, 321–346.Google Scholar
  9. Hausman, Jerry, Gregory Leonard, and J. Douglas Zona (1994) 'Competitive Analysis with Differenciated Products', Annales d'Economie et Statistique, 34, 159–180.Google Scholar
  10. Leamer, Edward (1983) 'Lets Take the 'Con' Out of Econometrics', American Economic Review, 73, 31–43.Google Scholar
  11. McFadden, D. (1974) 'Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior', in P. Aarembka (ed.), Frontiers in Econometrics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Shapiro, Carl (1996) 'Mergers with Differentiated Products', Antitrust, Spring, 23–30.Google Scholar
  13. Train, Kenneth (1986) Qualitative Choice Analysis. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission (1992), Horizontal Merger Guidelines, April 2.Google Scholar
  15. Werden, Gregory J. (1997a) 'Simulating the Effects ofMergers in Differentiated Products Industries: A Practical Alternative to Structural Merger Policy', George Mason Law Review, 5, 363–386.Google Scholar
  16. Werden, Geregory J. (1997b) 'Simulating Unilateral Competitive Effects from Differentiated Products Mergers', Antitrust, Spring, 27–31.Google Scholar
  17. Werden, Gregory J. (1997c) 'A Robust Test for ConsumerWelfare EnhancingMergers among Sellers of Differentiated Products', Journal of Industrial Economics, 44, 409–413.Google Scholar
  18. Werden, Gregory J. (1997d) 'Simulating the Effects of Differentiated Products Mergers: A Practitioners' Guide', in Julie A. Caswell and Ronald W. Cotterill (eds.), Strategy and Policy in the Food System: Emerging Issues. Storrs, Conn.: Food Marketing Policy Center.Google Scholar
  19. Werden, Gregory J., and Luke M. Froeb (1994) 'The Effects of Mergers in Differentiated Products Industries: Logit Demand and Merger Policy', Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 10, 407–426.Google Scholar
  20. Werden, Gregory J., and Luke M. Froeb (1996) 'Simulation as an Alternative to Structural Merger Policy in Differentiated Products Industries', in Malcolm Coate and Andrew Kleit (eds.), The Economics of the Antitrust Process. New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  21. Werden, Gregory J., Luke M. Froeb, and Timothy J. Tardiff (1996) 'The Use of the Logit Model in Applied Industrial Organization', International Journal of the Economics of Business, 3, 83–105.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Philip Crooke
    • 1
  • Luke Froeb
    • 1
  • Steven Tschantz
    • 1
  • Gregory J Werden
    • 2
  1. 1.Vanderbilt UniversityNashvilleU.S.A
  2. 2.U.S. Department of JusticeWashingtonU.S.A

Personalised recommendations