Category: agriculture

Who Earns the Food Dollar?

Part 2 on the Farmers’ Share of the Food Dollar (see Part 1 here).

The ag value chain involves a wide array of participants to get food products from ground to grocery store–or increasingly, from research to restaurant. Every dollar spent on food has to be divided between all the different players. As the number of participants grows, and as more value is added at different stages of the value chain, the percentage of food dollar going to any one group is likely to decline.

This is why the farmers’ share of the food dollar has been on the decline for, well, pretty much the past century at least.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren and, more recently, Sen. Bernie Sanders have proposed aggressive antitrust enforcement of “Big Ag” companies—whether farm input companies like Bayer or early-stage processors like JBS or Tyson in the meat industry. The Senators claim that cracking down on these big companies will be beneficial for farmers and increasing farmers’ share of the food dollar. In my previous post, I explained why those arguments are wrong. In fact, those arguments are not even consistent with the data being used to justify the claims.

To really understand why farmers’ share of the food dollar has declined, one has to understand how—and where—value is created in the value chain. More specifically, one has to understand how value is added to the agricultural products that farmers produce. And how existing farm sector institutions work to make farmers’ share lower than it might otherwise be.

A recent (March 2019) McKinsey & Co. article titled “A Winning Growth Formula for Dairy” illustrates this value creation story. The article describes the challenge facing dairy company executives globally, and particularly in the U.S. Dairy farmers have been struggling with low raw milk prices resulting from continued over-production of milk relative to demand for dairy products. You would think large dairy companies would be bathing in profits with the cost of their primary input depressed—even below the cost of production, according to some farmer groups. And yet, return on invested capital in the dairy industry (ROIC; i.e., the economic value generated by their businesses) has been declining because growth in revenue and margins has not kept pace with an increasing cost of capital. The reason? Consumption of milk and dairy products in the U.S. has been on a long-term decline.

The authors go on to explain that dairy executives are faced with the challenge of how to create new value opportunities in the face of more milk being produced than there are uses for currently. New product development. New market development. These are expensive investments with uncertain outcomes. But that is where the value is being created for raw milk—not at the farm gate. In fact, one might argue that the value being created by dairy processors is in spite of having to overcome the value decreasing activities of dairy farms that, collectively, are overproducing.

This problem is not unique to the dairy industry. Whether corn, meat proteins, wheat, or any number of other agricultural commodities, agricultural producers are increasingly reliant on processors and refiners to transform producers’ crops into products consumers are willing (or required) to buy, and in a form consumers desire. It is not at all surprising, therefore, that more and more of the food dollar is being captured by firms beyond the farm gate. That’s where value is being added. That’s where more of the food dollar is being earned.

Why Sen. Warren is Wrong on Trust-busting Big Ag

Several Democratic presidential candidates courted rural voters in Iowa at last weekend’s Heartland Forum. Both Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) decried the plight of farmers, with Warren promising trust-busting policies to break up Big Ag. But Warren’s call for aggressive antitrust is more populist politics than sound economic policy.

Warren claimed that, “A generation ago, 37 cents out of every food dollar went into a farmer’s pocket. Today, it’s 15 cents. And one of the principal reasons for that has been concentration in agribusiness. You’ve got these giant corporations that are making bigger and bigger profits for themselves, for their executives and for their investors, but they’re putting the squeeze on family farms.” But there are several problems with that argument.

First, the farmer’s share of the food dollar is a pretty worthless measure of how well-off farmers are in the food economy. From an economic perspective, it is completely meaningless. In response to the perennial reactions by farmers’ lobbies to the USDA’s “Farm Dollar” report in 2018, Jayson Lusk provided a nice example of how focusing on farmers’ share of the food dollar actually can lead to very poor conclusions. Even more to the point, Gary Brester, John Marsh and Joseph Atwood demonstrate what agricultural economists have long understood:

“[S]ome have argued that decreases in FS (farmer share) statistics…are indicators of anti-competitive behavior in the food processing industry. Agricultural economists have long noted that such relationships cannot be justified on theoretical grounds. … We have empirically demonstrated that FS statistics and, by construction, farm-to-retail marketing margins, are not reliable measures of changes in producer surplus (welfare)… Consequently, these data should not be used for policy purposes.”

Brester, et al., “Evaluating the Farmer’s-Share-of-the-Retail-Dollar Statistic,” 34 Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 213 (2009)

Second, even if one could make any reasonable inferences from the farmers’ share numbers, they do not support the story Warren is trying to sell. While farmers’ share of the food dollar has declined over the past 24 years, the decline is not near as big as Warren suggests: from 16% to 12% of the real (2009) dollar value of domestic food sales, as shown in the nearby Table 1. But a closer look at the numbers reveals what is driving the overall decline: when people eat away from home, the share of the dollar that goes to the farmer is much smaller, because more of the dollar is going to the people that add additional value by processing and preparing the food away from home. And eating away from home has become more and more prevalent.

Table 1: Farmer Share of Total Domestic Food Dollar, 1993-2016

Truth be told, the microcosm of food eaten at home or away from home illustrates the larger issue: as consumers choose foods that have been further processed and prepared, more of the dollar goes to the people that add the additional value in the form of preparedness, packaging, convenience, etc., that consumers value. That’s why, over the last century, the farmers’ share of the food dollar has dropped from near 50% to only 12%.

But what about the big bad ag companies that Warren blames for this problem? Doesn’t the consolidation of Big Ag share some of the blame? Warren blames mergers of companies like Bayer-Monsanto on the farm inputs side or large multinationals like JBS on the farm output side for squeezing farmers’ share of the food dollar. What about them?

As it turns out, firms in the farm inputs industry (like Bayer or Corteva (the offspring of Dow-Dupont)) and firms in the food processing industry (like JBS or Tyson) also have seen their share of the food dollar decline, as shown in the nearby Table 2. For farm inputs, the share has dropped over 40%, even more than the farmers’ share; and food processing companies’ share has dropped over 20%, almost as much as farm shares. Not even the banking industry, another of Warren’s favorite regulatory targets, has seen an increase in its share of the food dollar. In fact, the only food industry segments experiencing any appreciable increase in food dollar share are retail sales and food service–again, where more of value-adding convenience and food preparation are being contributed.

Table 2. Share of Domestic Food Dollar by Industry Segment, 1993-2016

Antitrust is currently seeing a lot of renewed interest in political circles because big, bad corporations make easy populist political targets. And it may be true that increased concentration in some industries could stand more antitrust scrutiny, possibly even in agriculture. But broad antitrust enforcement is a very blunt, and potentially dangerous, policy tool that shouldn’t be invoked carelessly. Nor with as little understanding of an industry as Sen. Warren appears to have of the food system.

 

The Labeling Problem, Part 2

In The Labeling Problem, I explained how the presence of a label, whether on a college course or a food item, does more than just identify the product. It actually can influence consumers’ perceptions about the attribute the label identifies. As a result, it can also influence consumers’ perceptions of similar products that don’t have the label.

Consequently, labels have the potential not just to inform consumers, but to misinform them; particularly when the label is for an attribute that consumers do not fully understand. For instance, with genetically modified (GM), or genetically engineered (GE), food products.

There is another dimension of the labeling issue that I promised to return to: what makes economic sense? Remember the Three Simple Rules? What makes economic sense comes down to this: What’s the marginal benefit of providing the additional information? What’s the marginal cost of providing that information? And because we’re talking about a diverse set of consumers with different interests, that leads to the question of “who should pay for it?”

So What’s the Marginal Benefit?

Information is economically valuable only if it will change the outcome of a decision. Consequently, a GM label would create personal (or private) benefit only if the label would change the consumer’s decision to purchase the product. A Pew Foundation study found only 1-in-6 people (16%) “care a great deal about the issue of GM foods.” Another 37% “care some.” But do they care enough that it would make them willing to change their behavior even if it cost them additional money to buy the GMO-free product? Some scholars have attempted to estimate consumers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for GMO-free products as a measure of the value of labels (for instance, see here and here). The results tend to show individual consumers, on average, are willing to pay at least a little more for GMO-free products, whether the label denotes the presence–or the absence–of GMOs. Of course, this is also based on the fact that a large percentage of consumers lack knowledge about what GMOs are.

From a public policy perspective, the label only has value if it would lead consumers to make decisions that improve public well-being. The consensus of the scientific community is that there is no substantive nutritional, quality. or health safety difference between food containing GM ingredients and GMO-free foods (see here, here, and here). That suggests that there is no real public benefit to having the information provided.

What’s the Marginal Cost?

A wide range of numbers have been thrown around about the potential cost of mandatory labeling. At the low end, the Consumers Union (a pro-labeling group) commissioned a study that found the cost would be only $2.30 per person (or about $740 million) per year. That estimate is based primarily on the costs of labeling itself. It does not include costs of regulatory enforcement or increased costs in sourcing inputs, keeping the inputs segregated to prevent contamination by GM inputs, and product reformulation. Other studies (funded by anti-labeling groups) have suggested costs on the order of $450 per household (or about $56.7 billion) per year. In addition to including a more systemic view of the costs, these studies also make assumptions about manufacturers shifting more of their products to being GMO-free to avoid the negative stigma of having a “contains GMOS” label.

So while the predicted cost is wide-ranging, one thing is clear: The costs are bigger than zero.

Sound economic decision making (and therefore sound policy) requires the marginal benefits of any action to be at least as big as the marginal costs of the action. From a public perspective, the benefits are arguably zero, while the costs are greater than zero. That suggests a regulation requiring labels would not make economic sense.

Does that mean there should be no labels? Not at all. It simply means it doesn’t make sense to have a law that forces all consumers (many of whom are not concerned about GMOs anyhow) to pay for a regulation that has little or no public benefit in the first place.

But the fact that there are potential private benefits to labeling suggest that voluntary labeling may be desirable. Clearly, the value of labeling information to some consumers is greater than zero. And some of those consumers would both pay for that information and change their consumption decision based on it. Manufacturers who believe they can deliver that value at a low enough cost to make a profit on it have every incentive to make that happen. And in fact, that’s exactly the situation we have now in the US with voluntary “GMO-Free” and/or “Organic” labeling.

One might still object that these voluntary labels may create a negative stigma about non-labeled products. And that’s a fair point. But that also means that industry has an incentive to more proactively educate consumers about the science behind GM-foods, so they won’t be fooled into paying more for something that may not provide the benefits they think.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, summarizes the whole point fairly well in the abstract of a recent paper:

Many people favor labeling GM food on the ground that it poses serious risks to human health and the environment, but with certain qualifications, the prevailing scientific judgment is that it does no such thing. In the face of that judgment, some people respond that even in the absence of evidence of harm, people have “a right to know” about the contents of what they are eating. But there is a serious problem with this response: there is a good argument that the benefits of such labels would be lower than the costs.

Consumers would obtain no health benefits from which labels. To the extent that they would be willing to pay for them, the reason (for many though not all) is likely to be erroneous beliefs, which are not a sufficient justification for mandatory labels. Moreover, GMO labels might well lead people to think that the relevant foods are harmful and thus affirmatively mislead them.

 

 

 

A(n Ethanol) Subsidy By Any Other Name?

’Tis but thy name that is my enemy; Thou art thyself though, not a Montague.
What’s Montague? it is nor hand, nor foot, nor arm, nor face, nor any other part
Belonging to a man. O! be some other name: What’s in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet; So Romeo would, were he not Romeo call’d,
Retain that dear perfection which he owes without that title.
~ Juliet, “Romeo & Juliet,” Act II, Scene II
William Shakespeare

It seems ethanol interests have a similar attitude toward the word “subsidy” as did Juliet toward Romeo.

Growth Energy, a biofuels lobbying organization, is currently holding its 2018 Executive Leadership Conference. The opening panel was titled “Up The Road: Does Ag Need Biofuels.” Not too surprisingly, the overwhelming conclusion was “Yes!”, as reported by the Iowa Renewable Fuels Association (RFA). And it’s true that biofuels are important for the corn and soy belt. According to the USDA’s Economic Research Service, 37% of corn (see Table 5) and 27% of soybeans (see Table 6) were used to make ethanol and biodiesel, respectively, in the 2016/17 marketing year. Of course, that use of biofuels is almost entirely the result of artificial demand created by government regulations that mandate use of ethanol, in particular, and biofuels more generally, in automobile fuel supplies. So when leaders in the ag industry affirm the importance of biofuels to the ag sector, they are essentially confessing the industry is dependent on an implicit subsidy in the form of consumer mandates.

That was the point I made in retweeting Iowa RFA’s tweet above.
By declaring a dependence on government mandates, these leaders in agriculture are effectively saying they cannot thrive in a competitive market and need government assistance. And these regulations do have the effect of thwarting innovation to the detriment of all fuel consumers. The rationale for incorporating ethanol in gasoline is to serve as an oxygenate to help the fuel burn cleaner, thereby reducing engine emissions. The Clean Air Act requires oxygenates be added to fuel to reduce air pollution. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Title XV) introduced the Renewable Fuels Standard that specifically mandates ethanol as the oxygenate that must be used, thereby discouraging research and development of alternate, potentially more cost efficient or environmentally beneficial, oxygenates.

The Iowa RFA was quick to reply, pointing out that biofuels “do not currently receive federal tax subsidies.” And that’s technically true–but it’s also disingenuous. As Juliet might say, a subsidy by any other name (like a renewable fuel standard) is no less a subsidy. It’s just a different channel of subsidy than direct tax dollar payments. But judging by the responses from other beneficiaries, it seems an important distinction. Kind of like a Capulet’s attitude about a Montague.

Some may think of subsidies as involving a direct payment to producers–like direct income payments to farmers or cost underwriting for crop insurance. But subsidies can also take the form of artificially inflating demand to increase the price and quantity demanded of the subsidized good. This is the tool the US government used to subsidize farms prior to the late 1980s; implementing commodity price supports by buying up the excess supply. It’s the same basic tool that is currently used to subsidize the electric car industry (via tax credits to car buyers; you’re welcome, Elon Musk). And, until the recent tax reform bill, it was one of the ways to help subsidize health insurance companies by mandating that individuals–particularly healthy individuals who are less costly to insure–purchase health insurance. In each case, the government subsidizes producers either directly, by giving them payments to cover costs, or indirectly, by bolstering demand (or in the case of health insurance, both).

It’s difficult when the things we love carry names, labels, or associations that are more convenient to ignore or deny than to embrace. It helps to call them something else, whether to deceive others or ourselves. But when it comes to consumer mandates, like the Renewable Fuels Standard, a subsidy by any other name is still a subsidy.

 

Minding Your Business

A few weeks ago I was interviewed for an article about some of the pros and cons of different organizational forms for farm businesses. The article, by Nancy Jorgensen, came out this month’s issue of Today’s Farmer, a publication of MFA, Inc. The intro has the usual caveats:

This article covers the pros and cons of various types of farm organizational structures. We provide a few general definitions and guidelines below, but we are not offering tax or legal advice. You should consult tax, legal and other experts before modifying your structure. Keep in mind that corporate law varies by state. It’s also important to note that no matter what their organizational structure, families continue to own the vast majority of U.S. farms.

You can read the full article here.

 

Innovation trends in agriculture and their implications for M & A analysis

This is a repost from the Mergers in Ag-Biotech blog symposium over at Truth on the Market. If you’re interested in more perspectives on the topic, I encourage you to read the other posts there.  If you’d like to comment, please do so on the TOTM version so it’s part of the general discussion.

The US agriculture sector has been experiencing consolidation at all levels for decades, even as the global ag economy has been growing and becoming more diverse. Much of this consolidation has been driven by technological changes that created economies of scale, both at the farm level and beyond.

Likewise, the role of technology has changed the face of agriculture, particularly in the past 20 years since the commercial introduction of the first genetically modified (GMO) crops. However, biotechnology itself comprises only a portion of the technology change. The development of global positioning systems (GPS) and GPS-enabled equipment have created new opportunities for precision agriculture, whether for the application of crop inputs, crop management, or yield monitoring. The development of unmanned and autonomous vehicles and remote sensing technologies, particularly unmanned aerial vehicles (i.e. UAVs, or “drones”), have created new opportunities for field scouting, crop monitoring, and real-time field management. And currently, the development of Big Data analytics is promising to combine all of the different types of data associated with agricultural production in ways intended to improve the application of all the various technologies and to guide production decisions.

Now, with the pending mergers of several major agricultural input and life sciences companies, regulators are faced with a challenge: How to evaluate the competitive effects of such mergers in the face of such a complex and dynamic technology environment—particularly when these technologies are not independent of one another? What is the relevant market for considering competitive effects and what are the implications for technology development? And how does the nature of the technology itself implicate the economic efficiencies underlying these mergers?

Before going too far, it is important to note that while the three cases currently under review (i.e., ChemChina/Syngenta, Dow/DuPont, and Bayer/Monsanto) are frequently lumped together in discussions, the three present rather different competitive cases—particularly within the US. For instance, ChemChina’s acquisition of Syngenta will not, in itself, meaningfully change market concentration. However, financial backing from ChemChina may allow Syngenta to buy up the discards from other deals, such as the parts of DuPont that the EU Commission is requiring to be divested or the seed assets Bayer is reportedly looking to sell to preempt regulatory concerns, as well as other smaller competitors.

Dow-DuPont is perhaps the most head-to-head of the three mergers in terms of R&D and product lines. Both firms are in the top five in the US for pesticide manufacturing and for seeds. However, the Dow-DuPont merger is about much more than combining agricultural businesses. The Dow-DuPont deal specifically aims to create and spin-off three different companies specializing in agriculture, material science, and specialty products. Although agriculture may be the business line in which the companies most overlap, it represents just over 21% of the combined businesses’ annual revenues.

Bayer-Monsanto is yet a different sort of pairing. While both companies are among the top five in US pesticide manufacturing (with combined sales less than Syngenta and about equal to Dow without DuPont), Bayer is a relatively minor player in the seed industry. Likewise, Monsanto is focused almost exclusively on crop production and digital farming technologies, offering little overlap to Bayer’s human health or animal nutrition businesses.

Despite the differences in these deals, they tend to be lumped together and discussed almost exclusively in the context of pesticide manufacturing or crop protection more generally. In so doing, the discussion misses some important aspects of these deals that may mitigate traditional competitive concerns within the pesticide industry.

Mergers as the Key to Unlocking Innovation and Value

First, as the Dow-DuPont merger suggests, mergers may be the least-cost way of (re)organizing assets in ways that maximize value. This is especially true for R&D-intensive industries where intellectual property and innovation are at the core of competitive advantage. Absent the protection of common ownership, neither party would have an incentive to fully disclose the nature of its IP and innovation pipeline. In this case, merging interests increases the efficiency of information sharing so that managers can effectively evaluate and reorganize assets in ways that maximize innovation and return on investment.

Dow and DuPont each have a wide range of areas of application. Both groups of managers recognize that each of their business lines would be stronger as focused, independent entities; but also recognize that the individual elements of their portfolios would be stronger if combined with those of the other company. While the EU Commission argues that Dow-DuPont would reduce the incentive to innovate in the pesticide industry—a dubious claim in itself—the commission seems to ignore the potential increases in efficiency, innovation and ability to serve customer interests across all three of the proposed new businesses. At a minimum, gains in those industries should be weighed against any alleged losses in the agriculture industry.

This is not the first such agricultural and life sciences “reorganization through merger”. The current manifestation of Monsanto is the spin-off of a previous merger between Monsanto and Pharmacia & Upjohn in 2000 that created today’s Pharmacia. At the time of the Pharmacia transaction, Monsanto had portfolios in agricultural products, chemicals, and pharmaceuticals. After reorganizing assets within Pharmacia, three business lines were created: agricultural products (the current Monsanto), pharmaceuticals (now Pharmacia, a subsidiary of Pfizer), and chemicals (now Solutia, a subsidiary of Eastman Chemical Co.). Merging interests allowed Monsanto and Pharmacia & Upjohn to create more focused business lines that were better positioned to pursue innovations and serve customers in their respective industries.

In essence, Dow-DuPont is following the same playbook. Although such intentions have not been announced, Bayer’s broad product portfolio suggests a similar long-term play with Monsanto is likely.

Interconnected Technologies, Innovation, and the Margins of Competition

As noted above, regulatory scrutiny of these three mergers focuses on them in the context of pesticide or agricultural chemical manufacturing. However, innovation in the ag chemicals industry is intricately interwoven with developments in other areas of agricultural technology that have rather different competition and innovation dynamics. The current technological wave in agriculture involves the use of Big Data to create value using the myriad data now available through GPS-enabled precision farming equipment. Monsanto and DuPont, through its Pioneer subsidiary, are both players in this developing space, sometimes referred to as “digital farming”.

Digital farming services are intended to assist farmers’ production decision making and increase farm productivity. Using GPS-coded field maps that include assessments of soil conditions, combined with climate data for the particular field, farm input companies can recommend the types of rates of applications for soil conditioning pre-harvest, seed types for planting, and crop protection products during the growing season. Yield monitors at harvest provide outcomes data for feedback to refine and improve the algorithms that are used in subsequent growing seasons.

The integration of digital farming services with seed and chemical manufacturing offers obvious economic benefits for farmers and competitive benefits for service providers. Input manufacturers have incentive to conduct data analytics that individual farmers do not. Farmers have limited analytic resources and relatively small returns to investing in such resources, while input manufacturers have broad market potential for their analytic services. Moreover, by combining data from a broad cross-section of farms, digital farming service companies have access to the data necessary to identify generalizable correlations between farm plot characteristics, input use, and yield rates.

But the value of the information developed through these analytics is not unidirectional in its application and value creation. While input manufacturers may be able to help improve farmers’ operations given the current stock of products, feedback about crop traits and performance also enhances R&D for new product development by identifying potential product attributes with greater market potential. By combining product portfolios, agricultural companies can not only increase the value of their data-driven services for farmers, but more efficiently target R&D resources to their highest potential use.

The synergy between input manufacturing and digital farming notwithstanding, seed and chemical input companies are not the only players in the digital farming space. Equipment manufacturer John Deere was an early entrant in exploiting the information value of data collected by sensors on its equipment. Other remote sensing technology companies have incentive to develop data analytic tools to create value for their data-generating products. Even downstream companies, like ADM, have expressed interest in investing in digital farming assets that might provide new revenue streams with their farmer-suppliers as well as facilitate more efficient specialty crop and identity-preserved commodity-based value chains.

The development of digital farming is still in its early stages and is far from a sure bet for any particular player. Even Monsanto has pulled back from its initial foray into prescriptive digital farming (call FieldScripts). These competitive forces will affect the dynamics of competition at all stages of farm production, including seed and chemicals. Failure to account for those dynamics, and the potential competitive benefits input manufacturers may provide, could lead regulators to overestimate any concerns of competitive harm from the proposed mergers.

Conclusion

Farmers are concerned about the effects of these big-name tie-ups. Farmers may be rightly concerned, but for the wrong reasons. Ultimately, the role of the farmer continues to be diminished in the agricultural value chain. As precision agriculture tools and Big Data analytics reduce the value of idiosyncratic or tacit knowledge at the farm level, the managerial human capital of farmers becomes relatively less important in terms of value-added. It would be unwise to confuse farmers’ concerns regarding the competitive effects of the kinds of mergers we’re seeing now with the actual drivers of change in the agricultural value chain.

TOTM Blog Symposium on Ag and Biotech M&A

My friends at Truth on the Market are hosting a blog symposium later this week including yours truly. It should be an interesting set of perspectives:

Agricultural and Biotech Mergers: Implications for Antitrust Law and Economics in Innovative Industries

March 30 & 31, 2017

Earlier this week the European Commission cleared the merger of Dow and DuPont, subject to conditions including divestiture of DuPont’s “global R&D organisation.” As the Commission noted:

The Commission had concerns that the merger as notified would have reduced competition on price and choice in a number of markets for existing pesticides. Furthermore, the merger would have reduced innovation. Innovation, both to improve existing products and to develop new active ingredients, is a key element of competition between companies in the pest control industry, where only five players are globally active throughout the entire research & development (R&D) process.

In addition to the traditional focus on price effects, the merger’s presumed effect on innovation loomed large in the EC’s consideration of the Dow/DuPont merger — as it is sure to in its consideration of the other two pending mergers in the agricultural biotech and chemicals industries between Bayer and Monsanto and ChemChina and Syngenta. Innovation effects are sure to take center stage in the US reviews of the mergers, as well.

What is less clear is exactly how antitrust agencies evaluate — and how they should evaluate — mergers like these in rapidly evolving, high-tech industries.

These proposed mergers present a host of fascinating and important issues, many of which go to the core of modern merger enforcement — and antitrust law and economics more generally. Among other things, they raise issues of:

  • The incorporation of innovation effects in antitrust analysis;
  • The relationship between technological and organizational change;
  • The role of non-economic considerations in merger review;
  • The continued relevance (or irrelevance) of the Structure-Conduct-Performance paradigm;
  • Market definition in high-tech markets; and
  • The patent-antitrust interface

Beginning on March 30, Truth on the Market and the International Center for Law & Economics will host a blog symposium discussing how some of these issues apply to these mergers per se, as well as the state of antitrust law and economics in innovative-industry mergers more broadly.

As in the past (see examples of previous TOTM blog symposia here), we’ve lined up an outstanding and diverse group of scholars to discuss these issues:

  • Allen Gibby, Senior Fellow for Law & Economics, International Center for Law & Economics
  • Shubha Ghosh, Crandall Melvin Professor of Law and Director of the Technology Commercialization Law Program, Syracuse University College of Law
  • Ioannis Lianos,  Chair of Global Competition Law and Public Policy, Faculty of Laws, University College London
  • John E. Lopatka(tent.), A. Robert Noll Distinguished Professor of Law, Penn State Law
  • Geoffrey A. Manne, Executive Director, International Center for Law & Economics
  • Diana L. Moss, President, American Antitrust Institute
  • Nicolas Petit, Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, and Co-director, Liege Competition and Innovation Institute, University of Liege
  • Levi A. Russell, Assistant Professor, Agricultural & Applied Economics, University of Georgia
  • Joanna M. Shepherd, Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law
  • Michael Sykuta, Associate Professor, Agricultural and Applied Economics, and Director, Contracting Organizations Research Institute, University of Missouri

Initial contributions to the symposium will appear periodically on the 30th and 31st, and the discussion will continue with responsive posts (if any) next week. We hope to generate a lively discussion, and readers are invited to contribute their own thoughts in comments to the participants’ posts.

The symposium posts will be collected here.

We hope you’ll join us!