Market Failure and Non-Standard Contracting: How the Ghost of Perfect Competition Still Haunts Antitrust

Modern antitrust policy has a ‘love hate’ relationshipwith non-standard contracts that can overcome market failure.On the one hand, courts have abandoned various per se rulesthat once condemned such agreements outright, concluding thatmany non-standard contracts may produce benefits that are cognizableunder the antitrust laws.¹ The prospect of such benefits, itis said, compels courts to analyze these agreements under theRule of Reason, under which the tribunal determines whethera given restraint enhances or destroys competition.² At thesame time, courts, scholars, and the enforcement agencies haveembraced methods of rule of reason analysis that are undulyhostile to such agreements.³ In particular, courts and othersare too quick to view such agreements and the market outcomesthey produce as manifestations of market power. This articleseeks to explain why these agreements are still the object ofundue hostility.     

NETWORK REGULATION: THE MANY FACES OF ACCESS

Telecommunications regulation has experienced a fundamentalshift from rate regulation to increased reliance on compelledaccess, perhaps best exemplified by the Telecommunications Actof 1996's imposition of no fewer than four new access requirements.Unfortunately, each access requirement is governed by a separateset of rules for determining both the scope and the price ofaccess. The resulting ad hoc regime has created difficult definitionalproblems and opportunities for regulatory arbitrage. In thisarticle we propose a system inspired by the discipline of mathematicsknown as graph theory that integrates all of the different formsof access into a single analytical framework. This system separatesdifferent access regimes into five categories: (1) retail access,(2) wholesale access, (3) interconnection access, (4) platformaccess, and (5) unbundled access. It also provides insightsinto how each type of access complicates the already difficultproblems of network configuration and management and introducesinefficient biases into decisions about network capacity anddesign. The approach we propose also provides insights intothe transaction cost implications of the different types ofaccess. Drawing on the Coasean theory of the firm, our approachexamines the tradeoffs between internal governance costs andthe external transaction costs of providing access to offera theory of network boundaries. This framework shows how accessregulation distorts networks' natural boundaries and providesa basis for evaluating whether private ordering through marketswould lead to more efficient network design.     

A CRITIQUE OF PROFESSOR CHURCH'S REPORT ON THE IMPACT OF VERTICAL AND CONGLOMERATE MERGERS ON COMPETITION

We discuss Professor Jeffrey Church's report to the EuropeanCommission in 2004 on the effects of vertical restraints andmergers. Although thorough and accurate, the report could bemisinterpreted by practitioners, as it does not emphasize thatmarket power is only a necessary condition for harm to competition,and that most vertical mergers that present the possibilityof competitive harm also present economic efficiencies thatare intrinsic to the integration.     

Effects of positional restraint on oxygen saturation and heart rate following exercise

This report assesses the effects on peripheral oxygen saturation and heart rate that positional restraint induces when a person is prone, handcuffed, and "hog-tied." Peripheral oxygen saturation and heart rate were monitored at rest, during exercise, and during recovery from exercise for 10 adult subjects. The effects of positional restraint produced a mean recovery time that was significantly prolonged. Consequently, the physiological effects produced by positional restraint should be recognized in deaths where such measures are used.     

PPS waivers: implications for Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurers

This paper compares the Medicare prospective payment system (PPS) to four all-payer rate-setting systems that operated under HCFA waiver authority. The study examines the experience of Medicare, Medicaid, and commercial insurers under the two approaches. Data from several American Hospital Association surveys and from Medicaid 2082 report forms are analyzed. The paper concludes that the all-payer waiver programs have been as successful as PPS in controlling the rate of growth in Medicare costs. In addition, Medicaid programs are more successful in controlling their outlays in all-payer rate-setting environments than when they "go alone." Finally, there is no evidence to suggest that hospitals can increase charges in response to greater financial need under either PPS or the state waivers. Nevertheless, it appears that commercial insurers are better able to compete with Blue Cross plans in all-payer rate-setting states than elsewhere.