Enforcement Against Excessive Pricing in the Russian Federation

Avdasheva, Svetlana; Korneeva, Dina

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-92831-9_8

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…220), there were only 57.6% antitrust infringement cases in Russia (concerning abuse of dominance 13 ) that have been reviewed in commercial courts during 2008-2015 where relevant market analysis has been undertaken (either for basic or formal market delineation; . The poor quality of economic analysis and, particularly, errors in market definition are often the reasons for overturning the antitrust decisions in court (Avdasheva and Golovanova, 2020;Avdasheva and Korneeva, 2018). Despite some drawbacks related to the use of survey data (Farrell and Shapiro, 2007) the hypothetical monopolist test is still considered as the priority way to define a relevant market (Pavlova and Shastitko, 2019;.…”

Section: Data and Empirical Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Deceptive evidence: The experience of product market definition for the purpose of competition law enforcement

Shastitko¹,

Markova²,

Morozov³

2022

RUJEC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Could identical goods sold by the same company on the same territory and at the same time be attributed to different product markets? In our paper we take a closer look at the case of the wrought-steel wheel industry, which became the subject of an antitrust investigation initiated by the FAS Russia in 2020. During a shortage, one of the largest wrought-steel wheel producers sold small batches of wheels to minor buyers at relatively high prices compared to the industry average. FAS Russia assumed this price difference to be evidence for abuse of market power. In contrast to FAS Russia’s conclusions, we suggest that wrought-steel wheels sold to major and minor buyers constitute at least two separate markets. To test this hypothesis, we define a relevant product market employing a price correlation analysis. To conduct robustness check we also provide a stationarity test on the log price ratio and a cointegration test which fall within the results of correlation analysis. As consumers actually did engage in side transactions, the revealed price difference is not related to price discrimination. We explain this price difference using the new institutional economics, assuming that goods sold to a large buyer do possess special transaction characteristics which do not meet the characteristics of the batches consumed by minor buyers. Another explanation is differences in bargaining power between large and minor buyers. Our result shows that there can be identified at least two wrought-steel wheel product markets: one with Russian Railways as the main buyer and the second one with smaller undertakings.

show abstract

Section: Data and Empirical Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Deceptive evidence: The experience of product market definition for the purpose of competition law enforcement

Shastitko¹,

Markova²,

Morozov³

2022

RUJEC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The choice of antimonopoly policy measures for highly concentrated markets (on the example of cement markets)

Makarov

Ponomarev

2021

MUEB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

В рамках антимонопольной политики могут применяться структурные или поведенческие меры для защиты конкуренции и общественного благосостояния. Вместе с тем эффективность таких мер зависит от характера влияния рыночной концентрации на конкуренцию. В экономической теории можно выделить как минимум два базовых подхода. Первый рассматривает высокую рыночную концентрацию как причину снижения конкуренции и общественного благосостояния (например, таких взглядов придерживались представители Гарвардской школы), второй подход допускает высокую концентрацию и как свидетельство интенсивной конкуренции, соответственно в таком случае не требуется государственного вмешательства. В статье для эмпирической проверки данных подходов был выбран рынок цемента России, проанализирован рост концентрации на рынках СФО и ДФО. Показано, что для таких рынков (с учетом их характеристик) более справедлив оказался Гарвардский подход, рост концентрации приводил к снижению интенсивности конкуренции. Вместе с тем антимонопольная политика регулятора (ФАС) активно использовала поведенческие меры, достаточно сложные для применения, но которые не препятствовали росту концентрации. Для такого рода рынков можно рекомендовать применение не поведенческих, но структурных мер для повышения эффективности антимонопольной политики.

show abstract

Enforcement Against Excessive Pricing in the Russian Federation

Cited by 2 publications

References 14 publications

Deceptive evidence: The experience of product market definition for the purpose of competition law enforcement

Deceptive evidence: The experience of product market definition for the purpose of competition law enforcement

The choice of antimonopoly policy measures for highly concentrated markets (on the example of cement markets)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About