1. Antitrust Policy and Regulation
In this chapter we will examine the laws that reflect the foundation of antitrust policy in the U.S., along with the application of the antitrust laws by the U.S. courts. We will then look at industrial regulation of natural monopolies, examining the case for and against industrial regulation as well as the results of deregulation. Lastly, we will look at social regulation and how it differs from industrial regulation.
Chapter 19
Antitrust Policy and Regulation
Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.

2. Antitrust Laws The purpose: Prevent monopolization Promote competition
Achieve allocative efficiency
Historical background
Regulatory agencies
Antitrust laws
During the Industrial Revolution, businesses that were once small and localized started to grow and expand as transportation methods improved, production became mechanized and the corporate structure was developed. This led to the creation of dominant firms who sometimes used questionable tactics in consolidating their position in the market and once control was gained, charged higher prices to customers and demanded price concessions from resource suppliers. In response to this behavior, the government began regulating these businesses through regulatory agencies and antitrust legislation.
LO1

3. Antitrust Laws Sherman Act 1890 Clayton Act 1914
restraints of trade & monopolization
Clayton Act 1914
Outlaws price discrimination
Prohibits tying contracts
Prohibits stock acquisition
No interlocking directorates
Federal Trade Commission Act 1914
Celler-Kefauver Act 1950
The Sherman Act of 1890 was the first piece of antitrust legislation. It contains two main provisions: (1) any contract that tends to restrain trade is illegal, and (2) trying to monopolize any part of trade is a felony offense. This act provided a basic foundation for antitrust legislation but was not specific enough. In 1914, the Clayton Act was passed to elaborate and clarify the provisions of the Sherman Act. It outlawed price discrimination, prohibited tying contracts, prohibited the acquisition of stocks when the outcome would be less competition, and prohibited the formation of interlocking directorates. Also in 1914, the Federal Trade Commission Act was passed which created the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC has joint responsibility with the Justice Department for enforcing the antitrust laws. The Wheeler-Lea Act of 1938 gave the FTC additional authority over the area of deceptive advertising. The final piece of legislation is the Celler-Kefauver Act which amended the Clayton Act by closing the loophole in mergers. Prior to the Celler-Kefauver Act, firms could merely buy all of the physical assets of their competitors instead of buying the stock.
LO1

4. Antitrust Policy: Issues and Impacts
Issues of interpretation
Monopoly behavior vs. Monopoly structure
1911 Standard Oil Case
1920 U.S. Steel Case (rule of reason applied)
1945 Alcoa Case
Relevant market
1956 DuPont Cellophane Case
Issues of enforcement
Obviously the interpretation of these laws has led to varied applications. Exactly how do you define a monopoly? Even the Supreme Court cannot always agree as we see in the three cases listed. In the 1911 case, the Court found that Standard Oil was guilty of monopolizing the petroleum industry and ordered them to be broken up into smaller firms. In the 1920 case, the Court used a “rule of reason” standard and stated that just because there was only one firm in an industry, it is not necessarily illegal. Only if the monopoly acted to “unreasonably” restrain trade should it be punished. The 1945 case reversed that decision and said that mere possession of monopoly power violated the law. More recent rulings have tended to follow the “rule of reason” standard. The other key issue is exactly how the market is defined. In the 1956 case, the Court looked at the overall market of “flexible wrapping materials” rather than the narrower market of just cellophane. Using this standard, DuPont was not found to be a monopoly and thus not in violation of the law. When it comes to interpretation, the administration of the laws will also reflect the views of the president who is in office at the time. Someone with a laissez-faire perspective would take a more hands-off approach than would someone with an active antitrust perspective.
LO2

5. Effectiveness of Antitrust Laws
Monopoly
AT&T
Microsoft Case
Mergers
Horizontal merger
Vertical merger
Conglomerate merger
We can look at a couple of examples to evaluate the effectiveness of these laws. The first deals with AT&T. After being charged with violating the Sherman Act, AT&T was forced to divest itself of its regional phone companies. (Remember Ma Bell and the Baby Bells?) Microsoft has more recently been found to be guilty of violating the Sherman Act and, although was not required to break-up, was prohibited from engaging in specific anticompetitive business practices. The European Union is currently very pro-active in enforcing antitrust laws, perhaps due to the fact that their markets are younger and less developed than the U.S. markets and therefore need greater protection.
LO2

6. Mergers Automobiles Blue Jeans A B C D E F T U V W X Y Z
Conglomerate Merger
Blue
Jeans
Autos A B C D E F T U V W X Y Z
Mergers tend to fall into three different categories. A horizontal merger is a merger between two competitors who sell similar products in the same area. Vertical mergers are between two firms who are at different stages of the production process. A conglomerate merger involves any other type of merger, so it could involve firms from different industries, or different geographical areas.
Glass
Denim
Fabric
Horizontal Merger
Vertical Merger
LO2

7. Mergers Merger guidelines The Herfindahl Index Price fixing
Price discrimination
Tying contracts
The Herfindahl Index is used by the government to decide whether or not to allow a merger. If it determines that the merger will give the combined firm too much power or control, the government can prevent the merger from occurring. Horizontal or vertical mergers are the most likely ones to be blocked. Price fixing, price discrimination and tying contracts are all prohibited behaviors under the Clayton Act. Price discrimination charges are rare since it tends not to reduce competition. Tying contracts are strictly prohibited and the government aggressively pursues the violators.
LO2

8. Industrial Regulation
Natural monopoly
Economies of scale
Public utilities
Electricity, water, gas, phone
Solutions for better outcomes
Public ownership
Public regulation
Public interest theory of regulation
There are some situations where everyone benefits from the monopoly. Natural monopolies exist when economies of scale are so large that a single firm can supply the entire market at a lower cost than could a number of competing firms. Public utilities are the most common examples of natural monopolies. In these cases, control of the monopoly may be achieved through public ownership or public regulation. The next slide lists examples of several agencies involved in the regulatory process. The economic objective of industrial regulation is embodied in the public interest theory of regulation. This theory supposes that industrial regulation is necessary to keep a natural monopoly from charging monopoly prices and therefore harming consumers and society.
LO3

9. Problems with Industrial Regulation
Regulators establish rates to give natural monopoly “fair return”
No incentive to reduce cost
X-inefficiency
Perpetuating Monopoly
Conditions of natural monopoly can end
Legal Cartel Theory of Regulation
There are a couple of problems with the effectiveness of industrial regulation. One is that an unregulated firm has a strong incentive to reduce costs in order to increase profits. Regulated firms have less of an incentive since they are guaranteed a fair return regardless of costs. The other problem is that regulation can actually end up perpetuating the monopoly, even when conditions have changed, so that competition would not be possible. For example, technological advances eliminated the need for monopolies in the telephone industry and today that industry is a competitive marketplace. Some firms may seek to be regulated if they believe that the regulation will reduce competition and raise prices the same way a private cartel would. In this system, the government would serve as the invisible hand guiding the industry to competitiveness through such means as blocked entry or dividing up the market.
LO3