Abstract
The FTC's successful challenge of the Staples-Office Depot merger is one of the most important antitrust cases in recent years. Vital to the FTC's success was evidence that prices for office supplies were significantly higher in markets having only one firm operating office supply superstores than in markets having two or three such firms. The FTC used this evidence to argue that the merger would raise the price of office supplies. This paper applies an idea of Harold Demsetz (1989) - indivisibility rent - to argue that one-firm markets probably have higher marginal costs. If so, the FTC's inference about the effect of the merger is doubtful.
Submitted Version (
Free)
Published Version
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.
