Search results

Plus Factors have long played an important role in inferring a price agreement from the totality of the evidence. In response to changes in the case law, economists have proposed two alternative paths for the future of price fixing analysis. This paper evaluates the suggested approaches and recommends retaining the enhanced Plus Factor methodology.

By carefully defining the Plus Factor concept, three key components of the analysis emerge: (1) information on communications associated with the alleged agreement, (2) economic considerations affecting market competition, and (3) characteristics that serve to differentiate explicit from tacit collusion.

Developments rationalizing the Plus Factor concept show promise, as the methodology is not more closely related to economic theory. On the other hand, replacement of the Plus Factor methodology with one focused on market performance seems problematic. By abandoning the Plus Factor concept, the economist loses a key institutional constraint on over-aggressive enforcement.

Until advocates can address the difficulties associated with using performance evidence to identify price fixing, the standard Plus Factor concept appears more appropriate. Thus, antitrust analysts should continue to use the Plus Factor methodology to infer agreements in price fixing investigations, as long as the economic rationalization of the specific Plus Factor is clearly presented.

The paper synthesizes a number of recent contributions to the price fixing literature and addresses key issues of interest to the enforcement community. By providing a critique of the proposed policy shift to use performance evidence to infer price fixing liability, the study serves to justify continued application of the Plus Factor methodology.

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.

This article addresses certain competition‐related issues that parties to a trans‐national merger and acquisition (M&A) transaction must face, preferably during the strategic planning phase. The ultimate focus will be on the suitability vel non of the World Trade Organization (WTO) serving, as has been proposed by some scholars and political bodies, as a form of supranational competition law authority with respect to merger clearance. The conclusion reached is that the WTO is institutionally ill‐suited for such a role but can, nonetheless, perform a useful albeit considerably more modest function as an enforcer of several purely procedural reforms suggested herein.

The Bureau of Economics in the Federal Trade Commission has a three-part role in the Agency and the strength of its functions changed over time depending on the preferences and ideology of the FTC’s leaders, developments in the field of economics, and the tenor of the times. The over-riding current role is to provide well considered, unbiased economic advice regarding antitrust and consumer protection law enforcement cases to the legal staff and the Commission. The second role, which long ago was primary, is to provide reports on investigations of various industries to the public and public officials. This role was more recently called research or “policy R&D”. A third role is to advocate for competition and markets both domestically and internationally. As a practical matter, the provision of economic advice to the FTC and to the legal staff has required that the economists wear “two hats,” helping the legal staff investigate cases and provide evidence to support law enforcement cases while also providing advice to the legal bureaus and to the Commission on which cases to pursue (thus providing “a second set of eyes” to evaluate cases). There is sometimes a tension in those functions because building a case is not the same as evaluating a case. Economists and the Bureau of Economics have provided such services to the FTC for over 100 years proving that a sub-organization can survive while playing roles that sometimes conflict. Such a life is not, however, always easy or fun.

The monograph argues that American racism has two colours (white and black), not one; and that each racism dresses itself not in one clothing, but in four: (1) “Minimal” negative, when one race considers another race inferior to itself in degree, but not in nature; (2) “Maximal” negative, when one race regards another as inherently inferior; (3) “Minimal” positive, when one race elevates another race to a superior status in degree, but not in nature; and (4) “Maximal” positive, when one race believes that the other race is genetically superior. The monograph maintains that the needs of capitalism created black slavery; that black slavery produced white racism as a justification for black slavery; and that black racism is a backlash of white racism. The monograph concludes that the abolition of black slavery and the civil rights movement destroyed the social and political ground for white and black racism, while the modern development of capitalism is demolishing their economic and intellectual ground.

This chapter provides a review of existing research on learning gain and related topics in higher education. The methodology adopted is a form of systematic review. The origins and meaning of learning gain, and its relation to similar terms, are discussed. The ways in which learning gain has been applied in practice and in research are considered. The issues raised by this practice and research are examined, and the various criticisms made are reviewed. Some conclusions are then drawn.

Learning gain – the attempt to measure the different ways in which students benefit from their learning experience – is now a core part of government plans for higher education across many countries. A focus on student outcomes is a key strand of enquiry for judging quality and assessing value for money. New approaches to quantifying learning gain and new metrics were developed through 13 pilot projects across England. Evaluation of the projects explored the theoretical underpinnings of the metrics including behavioural, cognitive and affective approaches, as well as progress and outcome measures, and identified challenges to measuring learning gain. In this chapter policy implications of the global accountability agenda are discussed, including the use of metrics to drive enhancement, rank excellence and ensure quality and standards.

Leadership in higher education has become of increasing importance as the size of the enterprise has grown, and this has naturally led to a growing research interest in the topic. Using systematic review methods, this chapter interrogates and synthesises the research literature on leadership in higher education in terms of its meanings, application and practice, and the issues and critiques raised. It concludes that research into leadership in higher education has been both extensive and global in nature, identifying a variety of understandings, practices and approaches adopted, and the continuing dominance of white men in senior leadership positions. There is clearly scope for more research on this topic, which could both emphasise different issues and give greater recognition to the particular nature of higher education and higher education institutions.