Abstract
A recent article in this journal, Alexander (1988), tests whether the exchange of price information in the 1921 Hardwood case was a means of fixing prices or a way of coping with costly information. Alexander makes two serious errors. Both errors involve the incorrect use of a technique used to measure price-cost margins to determine the extent to which an industry is monopolistic, competitive, or somewhere in between. I reestimate Alexander's model correcting his two errors. In addition, I improve his data set. Alexander's conclusion that the price association was pro-competitive, although drawn incorrectly, is shown to be correct.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
