Search results

When products are differentiated, applying the standard critical loss formula to assess whether it is profitable for a hypothetical monopolist to impose a common price increase can lead to delineating an antitrust market that is too broad by setting a critical loss threshold that is too low. This error is particularly likely to occur when the products exhibit very different per-unit profits, own price elasticities, and cross price elasticities. In particular, different per-unit profits are a necessary condition for this error to occur and this difference is more likely to be driven by an asymmetry in prices than by an asymmetry in costs when own price elasticities are moderate in magnitude. In contrast, differences in the quantity sold of each product do not tend to lead to errors in market definition. Given the issues associated with the standard critical loss analysis, critical loss analysis with asymmetric price increases and the gross upward pricing pressure index are practical alternative approaches for conducting market definition analysis when products in a candidate market are differentiated.

This paper generalizes the critical loss concept of Harris and Simons to account for a broader range of possible cost structures. Our analysis presents a specialized market-level equilibrium for a relatively homogeneous good in which the Harris and Simons’ critical loss structure is appropriate for market definition. Then, we broaden the equilibrium and propose a generalized critical loss analysis. Of course, for relatively differentiated goods, market definition analysis would use firm-level modeling and therefore the standard market-level critical loss modeling could be inappropriate.

To develop a framework for systematically defining the relevant market for intermediate goods that incorporates downstream market conditions.

We combine the well-established “Hicks-Marshall” conditions of derived demand for inputs with “critical loss/critical elasticity of demand” to yield insights into the definition of antitrust markets for intermediate goods and the competitive effects from a merger.

We show that examining “Hicks-Marshall” conditions can provide a more rigorous framework for analyzing relevant markets for intermediate goods. We also show that solely examining demand substitution possibilities for direct customers of an input can lead to an incorrect market definition.

Our framework may be difficult to apply in circumstances when several different downstream products use the input being examined and each of those downstream products has a different elasticity of demand.

We illustrate how reasonable ranges for key parameters relating to the ability of firms to substitute to other inputs and to adjust to downstream market conditions will often be sufficient to define antitrust markets for intermediate goods in practice.

Previous antitrust analysis has not systematically analyzed the impact of downstream market conditions in assessing market definition for intermediate goods. The framework we develop will be useful to future researchers attempting to define relevant markets for intermediate goods and evaluating the competitive effects of a merger.

This issue of Research in Law and Economics covers several areas of important research by a variety of international scholars. It contains technical papers on the appropriate way to estimate damages in patent disputes, as well as methods for evaluating relevant markets and vertically integrated firms when determining the competitive effects of mergers and other actions. There are also papers on the implication of different legal processes, regulations, and liability rules on consumer welfare, which range from the impact of delays in legal decisions in labor cases in France to issues of criminal liability related to the use of artificial intelligence.

The extant literature underlines the inadequacies of legal and policy frameworks addressing the safety and health concerns of sandstone mineworkers in India. Notably, Rajasthan, a state renowned for its extractive industries, mirrors these concerns. Against this backdrop, this paper aims to critically evaluate the relevant legal and policy landscape, with an emphasis on the recent central statute: the Occupational Safety, Health and Working Conditions Code of 2020 (OSHWCC). Given that the Code subsumes the key legislation pertaining to the safety and health of mineworkers, an in-depth critical analysis is essential to forge suitable policy interventions to address continued gross violations of human rights.

The critical analysis of legal and policy frameworks on silicosis in sandstone mineworkers is based on a comprehensive reading of existing literature. The literature includes relevant laws, case law, reports of the Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission and National Human Rights Commission, publicly available data and key scholarly contributions in the field.

Although the OSHWCC has made some changes to the existing regulatory architecture of mines in India, it has failed to safeguard the safety and health of mineworkers. Notably, the vast majority of mines in India – constituting approximately 90%, which are informal, seasonal and small-scale – remain beyond the jurisdiction of this Code. In Rajasthan, there are specific policies on silicosis, but these policies are poorly implemented. There is a serious shortage of doctors to diagnose silicosis cases, leading to under-diagnosis. The compensation for silicosis victims is insufficient; the distribution mechanism is complex and often delayed.

The central and many state governments have not established the regulatory institutions envisaged under the OSHWCC 2020; therefore, the working of the regulatory institutions could not be critically examined.

The paper critically evaluates laws and policies pertaining to silicosis in sandstone mineworkers, with a special emphasis on the state of Rajasthan. It offers a comprehensive critique of the OSHWCC of 2020, which has not received much attention from previous studies.

The purpose of this paper is to seek to break the deadlock of the current confrontations between the two powers.

The paper is comparative and theoretical.

The findings suggest that multinational corporations would be put between a rock and a hard place.

Only multi-pronged approaches could be viable to address the issue.

The aim of this paper is to propose efficient models and algorithms for reliability value analysis of complex repairable systems linking reliability and losses from failures.

The conventional reliability analysis is based on the premise that increasing the reliability of a system will decrease the losses from failures. In this paper it is demonstrated that a system with larger reliability does necessarily mean a system with smaller losses from failures. In other words, a system reliability improvement, which is disconnected from the losses from failures does not necessarily reduce the losses from failures. An efficient discrete‐event simulation model and algorithm are proposed for tracking the losses from failures for systems with complex topology. A new algorithm is also proposed for system reliability analysis related to productions systems based on multiple production units where the absence of a critical failure means that at least m out n production units are working.

A model for determining the distribution of the net present value (NPV) characterising the production systems is developed. The model has significant advantages compared to models based on the expected value of the losses from failures. The model developed in this study reveals the variation of the NPV due to variation of the number of critical failures and their times of occurrence during the entire life‐cycle of the systems.

The proposed models have been successfully applied and tested for reliability value analysis of productions systems in deepwater oil and gas production.

The proposed approach has been demonstrated by comparing the losses from failures and the NPVs of two competing design topologies: one based on a single‐channel control and the other based on a dual‐channel control.