| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type | 
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 7384219 | Research in Economics | 2016 | 16 Pages | 
Abstract
												An important question from the standpoint of antitrust economics is, how do mergers in durable-goods industries differ from those in nondurable-goods industries from the perspective of welfare effects? Previous papers that have considered this issue employ an approach to modeling durable-goods markets that was popularized by Swan in the early 1970s in which new and used “service units” are perfect substitutes in consumption. We employ a modeling approach similar to those employed in later contributions by Anderson and Ginsburgh (1994), Waldman (1996a), and Hendel and Lizzeri (1999) which, more realistically, do not make the perfect substitutability assumption. Our analysis confirms the main result of the earlier literature which is that a competitively supplied stock of used units typically reduces the welfare loss associated with a durable-goods merger. However, we also show that in most cases this reduction is much smaller than found in Carlton and Gertner׳s (1989) classic analysis of the topic. The implication is that the antitrust authorities should be more concerned about mergers in durable-goods industries than the previous literature suggests.
											Keywords
												
											Related Topics
												
													Social Sciences and Humanities
													Economics, Econometrics and Finance
													Economics and Econometrics
												
											Authors
												Ari D. Gerstle, Michael Waldman, 
											