Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T15:29:23.320Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cooperative Antitrust Monopolization and the Theory of Contestable Markets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Terence J. Centner  and
Michael E. Wetzstein
Terence J. Centner
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Georgia
Michael E. Wetzstein
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Georgia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The judiciary has relied on a firm's market share to evaluate the presence of monopoly power for a Sherman Act monopolization violation. However, an allegation that a firm's market share constitutes monopoly power may be refuted by evidence that there exists a contestable market. Contestable market theory shows that there is no monopoly power where there exists a threat of entry of other firms. This theory thereby offers agricultural cooperatives, which may have a large market share by reasons of the antitrust immunity provided by the Capper-Volstead Act, an argument to overcome allegations of a Sherman Act monopolization violation.

Keywords

cooperativescontestable marketsantitrustmonopoly
Type
Submitted Articles
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 16 , Issue 1 , July 1984 , pp. 129 - 136
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Areeda, P. and Turner, D. F.. “Predatory Pricing and Related Practices Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.” Harvard Law Review, 88(1975):697–733.Google Scholar
Baumol, W. “Contestable Markets: An Uprising in the Theory of Industry Structure.” American Economic Review, 72(March 1982):1–15.Google Scholar
Baumol, W., Panzar, J. C. and Willig, R. D.. Contestable Markets and the Theory of Industry Structure, New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1982.Google Scholar
Cournot, A. A. Researchers into the Mathematical Principles of the Theory of Wealth, 1983, New York: A. M. Kelly, 1960.Google Scholar
Jesse, E., Johnson, A., Marion, B., and Manchester, A.. “Interpreting and Enforcing Section 2 of the Capper-Volstead Act.” Amer. J. Agr. Economics, 64(1982):431–443.Google Scholar
Kamerschen, D. R. “An Estimation of the 'Welfare Loss' from Monopoly in the American Economy.” W. Econ. J., 4(Summer 1966):221–236.Google Scholar
Kaplin, L. “Potential Competition and Section 7 of the Clayton Act.” Antitrust Bulletin, 25(1980): 297–325.Google Scholar
Markham, J. “An Alternative Approach to the Concept of Workable Competition.” American Economic Review, June 1950: 349–361.Google Scholar
Nash, J. F. “Equilibrium in N-Person Games,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 36(1950): 48–49.Google Scholar
O'Hara, M. “The Economic Expert in the Antitrust Arena.” Antitrust Law and Economics Review, 13(1982): 17–39.Google Scholar
Parker, R. C. and Connor, J. M.. “Estimates of Consumer Loss Due to Monopoly in the U.S. Food-Manufacturing Industries.” Amer.J. Agr. Econ., 61(1979): 626–639.Google Scholar
Scherer, F. M. Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1970.Google Scholar
Sosnick, S. “A Critique of Concepts of Workable Competition.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, August 1958: 380–423.Google Scholar
U.S. Government Accounting Office. “Report to the Congress: Family Farmers Need Cooperatives— But Some Issues Need to be Resolved.” CED-79-106 (July 1979).Google Scholar