Vertical foreclosure: a policy framework

Whenever you phone your mother, switch on the light, or buy health insurance you purchase a service or product from a chain of vertically related industries. Providers of these products or services need access to a telecommunications network, an electricity network or to health care services. In such industries, integration and exclusive contracts between vertically related firms may have important welfare enhancing effects, but can also deny or limit rivals' access to input or customers, leading to foreclosure. Foreclosure can harm welfare if it reduces competition. This document provides policymakers with a framework to assess the potential for welfare reducing foreclosure of vertical integration and vertical restraints and describes possible remedies. The framework consists of four steps. Each step requires its own detailed analysis. First, market power should exist either upstream or downstream. Second, a theory of foreclosure should be formulated that explains why foreclosure is a profitable equilibrium strategy. Third, the existence and magnitude of potential welfare enhancing effects of the vertical restrains or vertical integration should be assessed. Fourth, suitable policies to address foreclosure should be found.

Market Size and Vertical Structure in the Railway Industry

We provide a theoretical framework to discuss the relation between market size and vertical structure in the railway industry. The framework is based on a simple downstream monopoly model with two input suppliers, labor forces and the rail infrastructure firm. The operation of the downstream firm (i.e., the train operating firm) generates costs on the rail infrastructure firm. We show that the downstream firm with a larger market size is more likely to integrate with the rail infrastructure firm. This is consistent with the phenomenon in the railway industry.

Successive Monopolies with Endogenous Quality

This paper analyzes the impact of vertical integration on product quality. Contrary to previous findings, it is shown that integration decreases quality in many natural situations. In general, the direction of the quality change is governed by three effects that are isolated in the model. This separation allows an analysis of important special cases like the manufacturer/retailer relationship, the intermediate/final good producer relationship, the deregulation of network infrastructure, and the provision of promotional services through independent distributors.Vertical integration, double marginalization, quality

(In)efficient trading forms in competing vertical chains

We study competing vertical chains where upstream and downstream firms bargain over their form and terms of trading. Both (conditionally) inefficient wholesale price contracts and efficient contracts that take the form of price-quantity bundles (and not of two-tariffs) arise in equilibrium under different parameter configurations. Changes in bargaining power distribution affect market outcomes by altering the trading terms and, more importantly, the trading form. As a result, a firm might benefit by a reduction in its bargaining power and consumers could benefit from an increase in the downstream �countervailing power� or from a more uneven bargaining power distribution.Vertical chains; strategic contracting; bargaining; two-part tariffs; price-quantity bundles; wholesale prices; vertical integration

Bottleneck co-ownership as a regulatory alternative

This paper proposes a regulatory mechanism for vertically related industries in which the upstream “bottleneck” segment faces significant returns to scale while other (downstream) segments may be more competitive. In the proposed mechanism, the ownership of the upstream firm is allocated to downstream firms in proportion to their shares of input purchases. This mechanism, while preserving downstream competition, partially internalizes the benefits of exploiting economies of scale resulting from an increase in downstream output. We show that this mechanism is more efficient than a disintegrated market structure in which the upstream natural monopoly bottleneck sets a price equal to average cost.Regulation, vertically related industries, co-ownership

Do Vertical Mergers Facilitate Upstream Collusion? Second Version

We investigate the impact of vertical mergers on upstream firms' ability to sustain tacit collusion in a repeated game. We identify several effects and show that the net effect of vertical integration is to facilitate collusion. Most importantly, vertical mergers facilitate collusion through the operation of an outlets effect: cheating unintegrated firms can no longer profitably sell to the downstream affiliates of their integrated rivals. However, vertical integration also gives rise to an opposing punishment effect: it is typically more difficult to punish an integrated structure, so that integrated firms are able to make more profits in the punishment phase than unintegrated upstream firms. When downstream firms can condition their prices or quantities on upstream firms' contract offers, two additional effects arise, both of which further facilitate upstream collusion. First, an unintegrated upstream firm's deviation profits are reduced by the reaction effect which arises since the downstream unit of the integrated firm will now react aggressively to upstream deviations. Second, an integrated firm's deviation profit is reduced by the lack-of-commitment effect as it cannot commit to its own downstream price when deviating upstream.vertical merger, collusion, vertical restraint, vertical integration, repeated game, penal code

An Economic Approach to Article 82

This report argues in favour of an economics-based approach to Article 82, in a way similar to the reform of Article 81 and merger control. In particular, we support an effects-based rather than a form-based approach to competition policy. Such an approach focuses on the presence of anti-competitive effects that harm consumers, and is based on the examination of each specific case, based on sound economics and grounded on facts

Better safe than sorry? Reliability policy in network industries

This report develops a roadmap for reliability policy in network industries. Based on economic theory, we analyse the relationship between reliability and various types of government policy: privatisation, liberalisation, regulation, unbundling, and 'commitment policy'. We let government policy depend on (1) the feasibility of competition between networks, (2) contractibility of reliability, and (3) the relation between profit maximisation and public interests. We test this roadmap on the basis of the empirical literature and case studies on electricity, natural gas, drinking water, wastewater, and railways.