Abstract
Inequality concerns in antitrust could justify market power in return for a fairer allocation by weighing the consumer welfare of disadvantaged groups more heavily. A simple example illustrates how seeking distributive justice through lenient antitrust enforcement is effective nor efficient. Permitting competitors to jointly set prices gives them the ability to price discriminate: overcharging the rich and giving lower than competitive prices to the poor. Provided society values redistribution enough, such a `Robin Hood cartel' is profitable, despite losing money on the poor and creating deadweight-losses. Yet the poor will be given only what is minimally required for permission to take profit-maximizing from the rich. A full-payout plan does not necessarily reduce total deadweight-losses. In essence, assigning a larger relative consumer welfare weight to the poor discounts the inefficiencies on the rich.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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.
