Increasing Market Concentration – Update October 2020

Increasung Market Concentration – Update October 2020

In this post I have compiled several newly published papers books and articles on the subject of Increasing market concentration. Mainly in 2019 and 2020.

Books
  • The Curse of Bigness
  • The Myth of Capitalism
Several new reserach papers were published by
  • Cato Institute
  • Brookings Institution
  • Federal Reserve

Reports

Rational decision making by the firms

  • Organic Growth – Use business investments to grow business – During growth phase of the firm and the industry
  • Inorganic Growth – Use Mergers and Acquisitions to grow – During mature phase and Declining Markets due to Technological Changes
  • Casacading effects
    • Leaders merge
    • Laggards merge
    • Suppliers merge
  • Micro Motives and Macro Behavior
  • What is good for a firm, May not be good for economy

Key Terms

  • Shareholder Capitalism
  • Market Concentration
  • Industry Concentration
  • Horizontal Merger
  • Verical Merger
  • Mergers and Acquisition
  • Competition Policy
  • Profits and Profitability
  • Corporate Finance
  • Anti Trust Laws
  • Industry Consolidation
  • Capitalism
  • Market Share
  • Competitive Dynamics
  • Organic Growth
  • Inorganic Growth
  • Business Investments
  • Macro Growth
  • Market Maturity
  • Product Life Cycles
  • Technological Changes
  • Wealth and Income Inequality
  • Monopoly
  • Oligopoly
  • Cross Border Mergers
  • Innovation based Mergers in Technology
  • HHI

My Related Posts

Shareholder Capitalism: Rising Market Concentration, Slower Productivity Growth, Rising Inequality, Rising Profits, and Rising Equities Markets

Rising Market Concentration and Declining Business Investments in the USA – Update June 2018

Rising Profits, Rising Inequality, and Rising Industry Concentration in the USA

Competition, Concentration, and Anti-Trust Laws in the USA

Concentration, Investment, and Growth

Increasing Market Concentration in USA: Update April 2019

Mergers and Acquisitions – Long Term Trends and Waves

The Decline in Long Term Real Interest Rates

Low Interest Rates and Business Investments : Update August 2017

Business Investments and Low Interest Rates

Why do Firms buyback their Shares? Causes and Consequences.

Cash and Investments: Corporate Savings Glut in USA

Key sources of Research

What if Rising Concentration were an Indication of More Cimpetition, not Less?

Causes, Consequences, and Policy Responses to Market Concentration

The Rise of Corporate Market Power

Market Concentration Is Threatening the U.S. Economy

The United States’s low-growth/high-inequality problem is due to too few firms holding too much power.CHAZEN GLOBAL INSIGHTSJoseph E. Stiglitz March 12, 2019 

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/articles/chazen-global-insights/market-concentration-threatening-us-economy

Increasing market concentration in Europe is more likely to be a sign of strength than a cause for concern 

Tommaso Bighelli, Filippo di Mauro, Marc Melitz, Matthias Mertens  13 October 2020

https://voxeu.org/article/increasing-market-concentration-europe-more-likely-be-sign-strength-cause-concern

The Economics and Politics of Market Concentration

Thomas Philippon

https://www.nber.org/reporter/2019number4/economics-and-politics-market-concentration

The Great Consolidation:
Industry and Equity Market Concentration after the Crisis

Top 5 Highly Concentrated Manufacturing Industries

by Marisa Lifschutz, Senior Analyst – Team Lead 
May 02 2019 

https://www.ibisworld.com/industry-insider/analyst-insights/top-5-highly-concentrated-manufacturing-industries/

How Market Power has Increased US Inequality

Are Markets Becoming Less Competitive?

Federal Reserve of Richmond

2019

https://www.richmondfed.org/publications/research/economic_brief/2019/eb_19-06/

Trends in Financial Market Concentration and Their Implications for Market Stability

Is Rising Concentration Hampering Productivity Growth?

Peter J. Klenow, Huiyu Li, and Theodore Naff

Rising Bank Concentration

Dean CorbaeUniversity of Wisconsin – Madison and NBER

Pablo D’Erasmo

Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia

https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/staff-reports/rising-bank-concentration

Are Markets Too Concentrated?

Industries are increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer firms. But is that a bad thing?Article by: Tim Sablik

Richmond Federal Reserve

https://www.richmondfed.com/publications/research/econ_focus/2018/q1/cover_story

Have Acquisitions of Failed Banks Increased the Concentration of U.S. Banking Markets? 

By Wheelock, David C.

https://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-257675083/have-acquisitions-of-failed-banks-increased-the-concentration

Large Banks Improve Competition and Consumer Choice in Local Markets

Sean Campbell•20 May 2019•

https://www.fsforum.com/types/press/blog/large-banks-improve-competition-consumer-choice/

Low Interest Rates Don’t Drive Market Concentration

A critical assessment of Atif Mian, Amir Sufi and Ernest Liu’s paper 

https://nathantankus.substack.com/p/low-interest-rates-dont-drive-market

Market Power and Monetary Policy

Speech given by

Andrew G Haldane Chief Economist Bank of England

Competition and Productivity: A Review of Evidence

Thomas J. Holmes

University of Minnesota,
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis,
and National Bureau of Economic Research

James A. Schmitz, Jr.
Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis

2010

Understanding market concentration: internet-based applications from the banking industry

Abstract

Fred H. Hays
University of Missouri-Kansas City

Sidne Gail Ward University of Missouri-Kansas City

Concentration, market power and dynamism in the euro area

Monopoly Myths: Are Markets Becoming More Concentrated?

Joe Kennedy 

June 29, 2020

https://itif.org/publications/2020/06/29/monopoly-myths-are-markets-becoming-more-concentrated

BENEFITS OF COMPETITION AND INDICATORS

2016

Council of Economic Advisors

Obama whitehouse

Why Is the Stock Market So Strong When the Economy Is Weak?

The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition

Jonathan TepperDenise Hearn (With)

ISBN: 978-1-119-54819-5 November 2018 320 Pages

https://www.wiley.com/en-us/The+Myth+of+Capitalism%3A+Monopolies+and+the+Death+of+Competition-p-9781119548195

Number of Banks in USA

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USNUM

Number of Listed Companies in USA

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DDOM01USA644NWDB

Long-Term Government Bond Yields: 10-year: Main (Including Benchmark) for the United States 

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/IRLTLT01USM156N

Mergers and Acquisitions Data for USA and Worldwide

http://www.imaa-institute.org

Market Power, Inequality, and Financial Instability

Isabel Cair ́o and Jae Sim 

2020-057

What Happened to U.S. Business Dynamism?1

Ufuk Akcigit and Sina T. Ates

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/what-happened-to-us-business-dynamism-20200214.htm

Untangling the Complex Causes of Inequality

December 4, 2018

https://www.frbatlanta.org/economy-matters/economic-research/2018/12/04/untangling-the-complex-causes-of-income-wealth-and-opportunity-inequality

Capitalism is not the source of our economic struggles

The real culprit is less obvious but can be remedied

Increased corporate concentration and the influence of market power

The New Economic Concentration

The competition that justifies capitalism is being destroyed—by capitalists.

BY DAVID DAYEN

JANUARY 16, 2019

https://prospect.org/power/new-economic-concentration/

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTES ON MARKET CONCENTRATION AND MARKET POWER

By
Dennis L. Weisman

The Curse of Bigness
Antitrust in the New Gilded Age

The Curse of Bigness by Tim Wu

Trends in Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions

Trends in Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions

 

From The Location of Cross-Border Mergers & Acquisitions in the USA

The vast majority of foreign direct investment (FDI) takes place in the form of cross-border mergers and acquisitions (M&As), see Evenett (2004). Analyzing the determinants and consequences of M&As is part of a large and growing literature in both (international) economics and (international) business. In economics, the dominant industrial organization (IO) literature does, however, typically not deal with the cross-border aspect of M&As, but instead concentrates on national M&As (Salant et al., 1983; O’Brien and Shaffer, 2005; Davis and Wilson, 2008; Egger and Hahn, 2010). A relatively small literature explicitly tries to include the cross-border aspect of M&As, but neglects the role of country factors that are central in international economics and international business to explain the structure and variation of cross-border transactions (Anand and Delios, 2002; Nocke and Yeaple, 2007, 2008, Bertrand and Zitouna, 2006; Fugmagalli and Vasconcelos, 2009, Halverson, 2012). The impact of country wide differences on cross-border M&As is taken explicitly into account by Neary (2004, 2007) who focuses on differences in comparative advantage between countries in a general equilibrium model to explain the occurrence of cross-border M&As. Empirical support for this idea is found by Brakman et al (2013), see also Blonigen et al (2014). In the international business literature – ever since the introduction of Dunning’s Ownership-Location-Internalization (OLI) framework – the mode of foreign entry and the choice of a foreign location have been central, but not explicitly modelled, as the OLI framework is more a taxonomy of relevant elements for location choice than a model (see for example Dunning, 2000).2

Both for the modern international business and international economics literature, however, whenever the location of cross-border M&As is taken into account, it usually refers to the host country as a whole. Where to locate the M&A within the host country is not analyzed. This amounts to assuming that if foreign firms have decided to engage in an M&A they choose a country but are indifferent regarding the target location within that country. This observation is the starting point for the present paper. In contrast to this observation with respect to cross-border M&As, the within country location choice with respect to greenfield FDI has been analyzed in depth. The seminal study by Head et al. (1995) was pivotal, and initiated a large and growing body of literature; see for example Fontagne and Mayer (2005); Basile et al., (2008); Defever, (2006); or Mataloni, (2011). Similar analyses for cross-border M&As are largely absent and this is striking because the bulk of FDI is in the shape of cross-border M&As. A priori, there is no reason to assume that the location decision of greenfield investments and M&As are similar. M&As, by definition, merge with or acquire existing firms at a specific location, whereas greenfield investments can, in principle, locate anywhere.

 

From Economic and Financial Integration and the Rise of Cross-Border M&As

FDI8

 

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI

  • Most of the Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) is in the form of Cross Border M&A.

 

The motivation for Cross Border M&A can be several:

  • Horizontal Integration ( Seeking Market Share)
  • Vertical Integration ( Control of Supply Chain)
  • Diversification (Market Seeking)

Research indicate that most of the cross border M&A are for seeking markets.

 

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI2

  • Cross Border Mergers have been rising since 1985.

 

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI3

 

  • Europe and North America dominate regions in which cross borders M&A are taking place.

 

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI4

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI6

 

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI5

From CROSS-BORDER MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS: THE FACTS AS A GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL ECONOMICS

FDI7

 

From  M&A Today: A Quick Pre-Financial Crisis Comparison

FDI9FTD10FDI11

Sources of M&A Data:

From Exploration of Mergers and Acquisitions Database: Deals in Emerging Asian Markets

There are four popular mergers and acquisitions databases,

  • SDC Platinum Mergers & Acquisitions (M&A) database,
  • Bloomberg M&A database,
  • Mergerstat M&A database,
  • ZEPHYR M&A database.

The SDC Platinum M&A Database covers domestic deals from 1979 to present and international deals from 1985 to present. Thomson Reuters states that the SDC includes more transactions than any other source and is widely used by the industry professionals and academic researchers.

The Bloomberg M&A database began putting the mergers and acquisitions product together in January 1998, with the intention of providing “100 percent coverage of all global deals as they were announced” (Ide, 2001). Bloomberg states that it has mergers and acquisitions staff in 12 offices worldwide compiling M&A data and relationships with over 800 legal and financial firms.

According to the Zimmerman (2006), the Mergerstat database covers both acquisitions and divestitures where at least one significant party is a U.S. company.

the ZEPHYR database covers transactions both inside and outside the U.S. and is particularly useful to study M&A deals in Europe (from 1997 forward for European transactions; from 2000 forward for North American transactions; global coverage begins in 2003).

 

Academic Libraries

 

Deloitte Consulting M&A Services

https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/pages/mergers-and-acquisitions/solutions/merger-and-acquisition-services.html

 

KPMG Consulting

https://advisory.kpmg.us/content/kpmg-advisory/deal-advisory/ma-spotlight/ma-spotlight-june-2017.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwo4jOBRBmEiwABWNaMQAFeh6oDkE3FAlfCTiA8yKJkpHwuRPwcvBQlnZpFbm_JpODEt1AuRoC8t4QAvD_BwE

 

Thomson Reuters

https://financial.thomsonreuters.com/en/markets-industries/investment-banking-financial-advisory/mergers-and-acquisitions.html

 

PITCHBOOK.COM

http://get.pitchbook.com/mergers-and-acquisitions-data/?utm_term=mergers%20and%20acquisitions&utm_source=adwords&utm_campaign=ma&utm_content=ma&_bt=166828976390&_bm=p&_bn=g&gclid=CjwKCAjwo4jOBRBmEiwABWNaMSspbwSShK79f6OskgjShGv0_8c8qgrnqF35qv2Fu9t9ZvgwfzfTpxoCaa8QAvD_BwE

White and Case

http://mergers.whitecase.com

 

IMAA-Institute.org

https://imaa-institute.org/mergers-and-acquisitions-statistics/

FACTSET / MERGERSTAT

https://www.factset.com/data/company_data/mergers_acq

 

Bureau Van Dijk/ZEPHYR

https://www.bvdinfo.com/bvd/media/reports/global-fy-2016.pdf

 

STATISTA

https://www.statista.com/topics/1146/mergers-and-acquisitions/

UNCTAD / World Investment Report

http://unctad.org/en/Pages/DIAE/World%20Investment%20Report/World_Investment_Report.aspx

Wilmer and Hale Law Firm

https://www.wilmerhale.com/uploadedFiles/Shared_Content/Editorial/Publications/Documents/2017-WilmerHale-MA-Report.pdf

 

Dealogic.com

http://www.dealogic.com/insight/ma-outlook-2017/

Please also see other related posts:

Mergers and Acquisitions – Long Term Trends and Waves

External Balance sheets of Nations

Low Interest Rates and International Investment Position of USA

 

Key sources of Research:

CROSS-BORDER MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS:
ON REVEALED COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AND MERGER WAVES

Steven Brakman
Harry Garretsen
Charles van Marrewijk

2008

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1087886https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1087886

 

Cross-Border Mergers & Acquisitions: The Facts as a Guide for International Economics

CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1823

 

Steven Brakman

Harry Garretsen

Charles van Marrewijk

 

Date Written: October 2006

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=940348

 

Cross-border Mergers and Acquisitions: Their Role in Industrial Globalisation

2000

Nam-Hoon Kang and Sara Johansson

 

http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/137157251088.pdf?expires=1505877469&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=BA90C157DC1196BE6E7C3CE1726D31FF

 

 

Theoretical foundations of cross-border mergers and acquisitions: A review of current research and recommendations for the future

Katsuhiko Shimizua,*, Michael A. Hittb,1, Deepa Vaidyanathc,2, Vincenzo Pisanod,3

Available online 24 July 2004

 

 

 Determinants of Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions

Isil Erel / Rose C. Liao /  Michael S. Weisbach

March 15, 2011

https://fisher.osu.edu/supplements/10/9864/ELW_JFRound3Revision.pdf

The Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions Wave of the Late 1990s

Simon J. Evenett

 

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c9545.pdf

 

 

 

The Macroeconomic Determinants of Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions and Greenfield Investments

Paula Neto; Antonio Brandão; António Cerqueira

2010

 

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Brandao3/publication/46466162_The_Macroeconomic_Determinants_of_Cross_Border_Mergers_and_Acquisitions_and_Greenfield_Investments/links/0912f50c5ab64daab5000000.pdf

 

 

The Impact of FDI, Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions and Greenfield Investments on Economic Growth

Paula Neto; Antonio Brandão; António Cerqueira

2010

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Antonio_Brandao3/publication/24111675_The_Impact_of_FDI_Cross_Border_Mergers_and_Acquisitions_and_Greenfield_Investments_on_Economic_Growth/links/0912f50c5ab651626b000000.pdf

 

Exploration of Mergers and Acquisitions Database: Deals in Emerging Asian Markets

 

http://www.myacme.org/ijmtp/IJMTPV14N1/3%20IJMTP14005%20Draft%203%20final.pdf

 

 

Cross Border Mergers and Acquisitions

Scott Whitaker

2016

 

 

Economic and Financial Integration and the Rise of Cross-Border M&As

STEVEN BRAKMAN

GUS GARITA

HARRY GARRETSEN

CHARLES VAN MARREWIJK

March 2009

 

 

 

The Location of Cross-Border Mergers & Acquisitions in the USA

Steven Brakman
Harry Garretsen
Charles Van Marrewijk

CESIFO WORKING PAPER NO. 5331

APRIL 2015

 

 

M&A Today: A Quick Pre-Financial Crisis Comparison

2017

 

https://financial.thomsonreuters.com/content/dam/openweb/documents/pdf/financial/pre-financial-crisis-comparison.pdf

 

 

 

 

Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions and Financial Development:
Evidence from Emerging Asia

Douglas H. Brooks and Juthathip Jongwanich

No. 249 | February 2011

 

https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/28703/economics-wp249.pdf

 

 

 

MERGERS AND ACQISITIONS (M&As)

Prepared by
Directorate for Financial and Enterprise Affairs, Investment Division, OECD

May 2004

 

https://www.imf.org/External/NP/sta/bop/pdf/diteg4a.pdf

 

 

 

OECD BENCHMARK DEFINITION OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT:

FOURTH EDITION –

ISBN 978-92-64-04573-6 – © OECD 2008

 

https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investmentstatisticsandanalysis/40193734.pdf

 

 

 

Economic and Other Impacts of Foreign Corporate Takeovers in OECD Countries

 

https://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/40476100.pdf

 

 

 

A Comparative Analysis of the Economic Effects of Cross-Border Mergers and Acquisitions in European Countries

Anita Maček

 

https://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs-wm/38482.pdf

 

 

Rising Profits, Rising Inequality, and Rising Industry Concentration in the USA

Rising Profits, Rising Inequality, and Rising Industry Concentration in the USA

 

There is a need for holistic/systemic understanding of causal relations among

  • Low Economic Growth
  • Low Real Long Term Interest Rates
  • Decreased Business Investment
  • Mergers and Acquisitions Activity
  • Industry Concentration
  • Decreased Competition
  • Rising Profits
  • Income Inequality
  • Shareholder Capitalism
  • Dividends Payouts
  • Buyback of Shares
  • Superstar Firms
  • Too Big to Fail
  • Oligopoly Economy / Oligarchy
  • Decreased Number of Stocks/Equities
  • Focus on Costs Minimization
  • Increased Outsourcing
  • Global Value Chains
  • Free Trade Agreements
  • Market Power (Increased Market Share)
  • Decreased Dynamism
  • Herding by Suppliers
  • Labor Vs Executive Compensation
  • Unemployment
  • Concentration in Occupations

And don’t forget managerial focus on

  • Economic Value Added (EVA) since 1990s

 

There are two views to look at these issues

  • Aggregated View – Corporate Agglomeration and Spatial Dispersion / Extension
  • Disaggregated View – Micro Motives, Macro Behavior ( Bottom up Agent based view)

 

As the research papers below indicate, the scholarship is recent and need much more attention by the Economists and Policy makers.

 

From Is There a Connection Between Market Concentration and the Rise in Inequality?

The rise in wealth and income inequality has been at the forefront of the political debate in the U.S. in the last few years. At the same time, issues like market power and concentration, bigness, and antitrust have also come back into prominence, propelled by a growing body of research that points to diminishing competition across multiple American industries.

The possible connection between inequality and market concentration, however, has been relatively understudied for many years—until recent years, that is, when a sheafof new studies examining the interactions between concentration, market power, and inequality began to appear.

A 2015 paper by Jonathan Baker and Steven Salop, for instance, examined the connection between inequality and market power and argued that “because the creation and exercise of market power tend to raise the return to capital, market power contributes to the development and perpetuation of inequality.” Harvard Law School’s Einer Elhauge also found that horizontal shareholding likely leads to anti-competitive price raises and has regressive effects. Daniel Crane of the University of Michigan, however, contends that the connection between antitrust and wealth inequality has been grossly oversimplified by advocates of tougher antitrust enforcement.

Asked if there was a connection between concentration and inequality, Chicago Booth professors Austan Goolsbee, Steven Kaplan, and Sam Peltzman pointed to data being inconclusive. Goolsbee said: “Probably [there is a connection]. But we don’treally know more than correlations at this point.” Kaplan said his own research “suggests that winner-take-all markets (driven by technology and scale) play a rolein inequality. However, they may not play the most important role.” And Peltzmansaid that “The timing suggests so, but there are a lot of unconnected dots in this question.”

Is rising inequality connected to monopolies, rent-seeking, and concentration, or is it a result of larger forces like globalization and technology? Can antitrust be used effectively to mitigate inequality, or is concentration a sign of greater efficiency? These questions, and others, were debated by economists and legal scholars during a panel at the recent Stigler Center conference on concentration in America.

The panel featured Peter Orszag, Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the financial advisory and asset management firm Lazard Freres; Justin Pierce, a Senior Economist at the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve; Lina Khan, a fellow at Open Markets program at New America; Sabeel Rahman, an Assistant Professor of Law at Brooklyn Law School; Simcha Barkai, a PhD Candidate at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business; and German Gutierrez, a PhD Candidate at the New York University Stern School of Business. The panel was moderated by Matt Stoller of the Open Markets program at New America, who opened by observing that “a new kind of Brandeis School of antitrust is emerging, in terms of thinking about political economy.”

Much of the panel focused on the dramatic rise in corporate profits. A recent, much-discussed Stigler Center working paper by Simcha Barkai found that over the past 30 years, as labor’s share of output fell by 10 percent, the capital share declined even further. This finding goes against the argument that the labor share went down due to technological changes, or as Barkai put it: “We used to spend money on people, today we’re spending money on robots.”

Barkai’s paper finds no evidence to support the technological argument. “We’re spending less on all inputs. If you think of this from the perspective of a firm, this is terrific. After accounting for all of my costs—material inputs, workers, capital—I am left with a large amount of money, much more so than in the past.” What Barkai does find, however, is that profits have gone way up. From 1984 to 2014, the profit share increased from 2.5 percent of GDP to 15 percent.

“To give you a sense of how large these profits are, if you look over the past 30 years and you ask, ‘How much have profits increased?’ you can give a number in dollars. A better way to think about that is, “Per worker, how much have these dollars increased?” It’s about $14,000 per worker. That’s a really large number because, in 2014, personal median income was just over $28,000. It’s about half of personal median income,” said Barkai.

Barkai went on to say that these findings were more pronounced in industries that experienced an increase in concentration. “Those industries that have a large increase in concentration also have larger declines in the labor share,” he said. Barkai’s conclusions were echoed by a separate study that was recently published by David Autor, David Dorn, Lawrence Katz, Christina Patterson, and John Van Reenen, in which they found that higher concentration is connected to the fall in the labor share.

One way to consider the question of concentration and inequality, said Pierce, is to look at what happens to firms’ efficiency and markups as a result of a merger. In a recent paper with Bruce Blonigen, Pierce was able to utilize new techniques in order to isolate the effects of mergers in the manufacturing sector. Comparing data from factories that were acquired during mergers to similar factories that weren’t, and to factories where an acquisition has been announced but not yet completed, Pierce and Blonigen found no evidence of the standard argument that mergers benefit consumers by increasing efficiency, reducing production costs, and, in turn, lowering prices. Quite the opposite: they found evidence that mergers increase market power, allowing firms to generate higher profits by raising prices.

“What we find when we do this is that mergers on average are associated with increases in markups in a magnitude of 15 to 50 percent. When we look at the effect on productivity, we actually don’t find a statistically significant effect on productivity associated with mergers,” said Pierce.

Gutierrez, meanwhile, spoke about his 2016 paper with Thomas Philippon, in which the two found that concentrated industries with less entry and more concentration invest less. Before 2000, he explained, firms funneled about 20 cents of every dollar of surplus into investments. Since 2000, however, investments dropped by half—to 10 cents on the dollar.

Their findings, he said, rule out the argument that the drop in investments is related to control by the stock market. The data also rule out other theories, such as financial constraints, safety premiums, or globalization. “What we’re left with is competition, or lack of competition and governance,” said Gutierrez.

“What we find is that most industries have become more concentrated. That leads to a decrease in investment. It means less investment by leaders in particular, and at the industry as a whole. Some manufacturing industries have seen increased competition from China. For the U.S. in particular, we see that leaders invest more. They try and hold onto their position, but the overall effect is somewhat negative on aggregate investment in the U.S.”

How is this drop in investments connected to an increase in concentration? Gutierrez offered two hypotheses: one, that superstar firms, such as digital platforms, are more productive and are therefore capturing more market share. The second, he said, is increased regulation: “In particular, if you look at the cross section of industries, industries where regulation has increased have also tended to become more concentrated and have invested less.”

Orszag, the former head of the Office of Management and Budget and former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, co-authored a 2015 paper with former Obama economic adviser Jason Furman that explored the rise in “supernormal returns on capital” among firms that have limited competition. In the panel, he spoke about what he described as a “dramatic rise” in dispersion among firms in productivity and wages as an understudied driver of inequality.

“In general, if you look at most textbooks on economics and most discussions of public policy, firms are seen as this uninteresting thing that you have to deal with but don’t want to really get into the innards of. Why do some firms behave differently than others? Having now spent a bunch of time in the private sector, the culture in firms really is quite different. Firms do behave differently from one to another beyond just market structure. Within the same market in the same field, Firm A is not the same as Firm B, as people who work inside those firms know.”

Orszag pointed to OECD data that showed that top global firms have been largely exempted from the decline in productivity that advanced economies experienced over the last 10-15 years. “If there’s a structural explanation for that, whether it’s polarization or market structure or innovation, why is it affecting only the laggards in the industry and not those at the frontier? Secondly, why aren’t there more spillovers from the frontier firms within each sector to others? What is happening to the flow of information or the flow of technique or what have you that’s causing this broad, significant rise in productivity deltas across firms, even within the same sector?” he asked.

Orszag also suggested that contrary to media narratives that present growing gaps between CEO wages and median workers within each firm as a prominent driver of inequality, the bulk of the rise in wage gaps is happening between firms, and not within the firms themselves. Studies, he said, show a dramatic increase in between-firm wage inequality “and very little movement except at the very, very largest firms in within-firm inequality.”

Orszag added: “We don’t know exactly what’s causing this. This may be a sorting of workers. It may be sharing of rents in the form of wages for the top firms. It may be a whole variety of different things. What I do suggest is the vast majority of the discussion on income-and-wage inequality seems to just glide over this whole thing as if it doesn’t exist.”

A holistic approach to inequality and concentration

Khan, who in a recent paper with Sandeep Vaheesan explored the role of monopoly and oligopoly power in perpetuating inequality, argued that the way to understand the connection between market concentration and inequality is to take a more holistic approach.

The connection between excessive market concentration and inequality, she said, has been understudied for a long time. “We were really surprised to see that at the time, in 2014, there really wasn’t much research on this connection at all. The most comprehensive paper that we found was from 1975 by William Comanor and Robert Smiley, which found that monopoly power did in fact transfer wealth to the most affluent members of society and suggested that a more competitive economy would have more progressive redistributive effects,” said Kahn. “One way to understand why this connection between market concentration and inequality has been understudied is that the law decided that it wasn’t really important. Once we shifted from an antitrust approach that took a more holistic and multidimensional view of the effect of market power to an approach that privilege means prices, the research on these effects also took a hit.”

In their paper, Khan and Vaheesan argue that inequality not only harms efficiency, but also that firms use their market power to raise prices “above competitive levels to consumers and push prices below competitive levels for small producers.” The paper makes a case for more rigorous enforcement of antitrust laws, arguing that reinvigorating antitrust could be one possible remedy for the regressive redistributive effects of concentration and the political power of monopolies.

“I think at a very basic level, our current political economy reflects 30 years of doing antitrust in a very particular way,” said Khan, who listed several industries such as airlines, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, and telecom, where prices have risen following mergers and industry consolidation.

“New business creation and growth have been on a secular decline. It’s worth recalling that in an earlier era, owning one’s own business was a form of asset building for the middle class, a way of passing on wealth to one’s children. This is especially still true in immigrant communities, where owning your own bodega or your own dry-cleaning service is a path of upward mobility. You can imagine how markets that shut out independent businesses are also effectively closing off that path of asset building,” said Khan.

Khan went on to discuss the political implications of excessive market power and how they can further entrench inequality. “Big firms and concentrated industries enjoy a level of political power that they can use to further entrench their economic dominance. Politics is another vessel by which we see this,” she said.

Rahman, author of the book Democracy Against Domination (Oxford University Press, 2016), also advocated for a wider view of the issue. “When we’re worried about the problem of concentration, I think it goes much broader than the specific areas of mergers and firm size, although that’s a big part of it,” he said.

“When we think about the good things that we want from the economy, we want it to be dynamic, we want it to be innovative, we want it to enable mobility. These things are not natural products. They are a property of the underlying structure of firms, of labor markets, of financial markets, and of policies, including antitrust,” said Rahman, who went on to discuss two aspects of the rise in concentration: digital platforms and the “Uber-ization” of more and more economic sectors, and what he described as a “growing geographic concentration of wealth, income, and opportunity between rural and urban.”

Rahman suggested that other tools, not just antitrust, could be used to combat excessive market power—particularly when it comes to the power of digital platforms. “The way I want to frame this is as a problem of concentration and inequality that warps the structure of opportunity in our economy,” said Rahman. “You have antitrust and public utility law, corporate governance, and labor law as three parts of the larger ecosystem of law and regulation that, coming out of that Progressive era debate about power, were the three complements that together, it was hoped, would produce a high-opportunity, a high-mobility economy that was open to all.”

 

Please also see my related post.

Low Interest Rates and Business Investments : Update August 2017

 

In addition to papers listed above, also see papers and articles mentioned in the references below.

Key sources of Research:

 

Rising Corporate Concentration, Declining Trade Union Power, and the Growing Income Gap: American Prosperity in Historical Perspective

Jordan Brennan

March 2016

 

http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/Brennan2016.pdf

They Just Get Bigger: How Corporate Mergers Strangle the Economy

Jordan Brennan

Feb 2017

http://evonomics.com/corporate-mergers-strangle-economy-jordan-brennan/

 The Oligarchy Economy: Concentrated Power, Income Inequality, and Slow Growth

Jordan Brennan

April 2016

http://evonomics.com/the-oligarchy-economy/

Declining Labor and Capital Shares

Simcha Barkai

November 2016

 

https://research.chicagobooth.edu/~/media/5872FBEB104245909B8F0AE8A84486C9.pdf

 

Lack of market competition, rising profits, and a new way to look at the division of income in the United States

Nov 2016

http://equitablegrowth.org/equitablog/lack-of-market-competition-rising-profits-and-a-new-way-to-look-at-the-division-of-income-in-the-united-states/

Rising U.S. business concentration and the decline in labor’s share of income

January 2017

http://equitablegrowth.org/equitablog/rising-concentration-declining-labor-share/

 

Concentrating on the Fall of the Labor Share

By DAVID AUTOR, DAVID DORN, LAWRENCE F. KATZ, CHRISTINA PATTERSON AND JOHN VAN REENEN

January 2017

http://www.nber.org/papers/w23108

Declining Competition and Investment in the U.S.

German Gutierrez and Thomas Philippon

March 2017

https://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty-research/sites/faculty-research/files/finance/Macro%20Lunch/IK_Comp_v1.pdf

 

Dynamism in Retreat:  Consequences for Regions, Markets, and Workers

2017

 

https://eig.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Dynamism-in-Retreat.pdf

 

The Oligopoly Problem

 

NewYorker

 

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/the-oligopoly-problem

 

 

DOES INDUSTRY CONCENTRATION MATTER?

John J. Phelan

2014

Journal of Economics and Economic Education Research, Volume 15, Number 1, 2014

 

 

http://www.alliedacademies.org/articles/does-industry-concentration-matter.pdf

 

 

Increased Concentration of Occupations, Outsourcing, and Growing Wage Inequality in the United States

Elizabeth Weber Handwerker

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

April, 2017

 

http://www.sole-jole.org/17733.pdf

 

 

Measuring occupational concentration by industry

2014

 

https://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-3/pdf/measuring-occupational-concentration-by-industry.pdf

 

 

Rising wage dispersion between white-collar and blue-collar workers and market concentration: The case of the USA, 1966-2011,

D. Ilhan

(2017)

 

https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/162859/1/893982539.pdf

 

 

 

Rising Profits Don’t Lift Workers’ Boats

2016

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-05/rising-profits-don-t-lift-workers-boats

Is There a Connection Between Market Concentration and the Rise in Inequality?

 A Firm-Level Perspective on the Role of Rents in the Rise in Inequality

Jason Furman Peter Orszag
October 16, 2015

 

http://gabriel-zucman.eu/files/teaching/FurmanOrszag15.pdf

 Evidence for the Effects of Mergers on Market Power and Efficiency

Blonigen, Bruce A., and Justin R. Pierce

(2016).

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econresdata/feds/2016/files/2016082pap.pdf

 

 

Market Power and Inequality: The Antitrust Counterrevolution and its Discontents

11 Harvard Law & Policy Review 235 (2017)

24 Apr 2016Last revised: 22 Feb 2017

Lina Khan / Sandeep Vaheesan

 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2769132

 

Too much of a good thing

Economist

March 26 2016

https://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits-are-too-high-america-needs-giant-dose-competition-too-much-good-thing

 

 The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms

David Autor, MIT and NBER

David Dorn, University of Zurich

Lawrence F. Katz, Harvard University and NBER

Christina Patterson, MIT

John Van Reenen, MIT and NBER

May 1, 2017

https://economics.mit.edu/files/12979

 

 

BENEFITS OF COMPETITION AND INDICATORS OF MARKET POWER

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/20160502_competition_issue_brief_updated_cea.pdf

 

 

 Market Concentration Grew During Obama Administration

SAM BATKINS, CURTIS ARNDT, BEN GITIS |

APRIL 7, 2016

 

https://www.americanactionforum.org/print/?url=https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/market-concentration-grew-obama-administration/

 Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Inequality

JONATHAN B. BAKER AND STEVEN C. SALOP

2015

http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2474&context=facpub

Horizontal Shareholding, Antitrust, Growth and Inequality

Are US Industries Becoming More Concentrated?

Gustavo Grullon   Yelena Larkin   Roni Michaely

Date Written: April 23, 2017

 

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2612047

Horizontal Shareholding

109 Harvard Law Review 1267 (2016)

Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 16-17    22 Apr 2016

 

Einer Elhauge

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2632024

IS THERE A CONCENTRATION PROBLEM IN AMERICA?

MARCH 27–29, 2017

Conference at University of Chicago / Stigler Center

https://research.chicagobooth.edu/stigler/events/single-events/march-27-2017

 

 

“Reigniting Competition in the American Economy”

Senator Elizabeth Warren

Keynote Remarks at New America’s Open Markets Program Event June 29, 2016

 

https://www.warren.senate.gov/files/documents/2016-6-29_Warren_Antitrust_Speech.pdf

 

 

The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications

Jan De Loecker† Jan Eeckhout‡

August 24, 2017

http://www.janeeckhout.com/wp-content/uploads/RMP.pdf

The Rise of Market Power and the Decline of Labor’s Share

The Financialization of the U.S. Economy Has Produced Mechanisms That Lead Toward Concentration

 June 2017

“No Convincing Evidence That Concentration Has Been a Major Factor in Explaining Poor U.S. Economic Performance”

 March 2017

Economists: “Totality of Evidence” Underscores Concentration Problem in the U.S.

“I Suspect the Major Reason for the Rise in Concentration Is Technological Change, Particularly in IT”

“The Increase in Common Ownership Corresponds to the Concentration Increase That Several Large Mergers Would Create”

Worried About Concentration? Then Worry About Rent-Seeking

“There Is Unambiguous Evidence That Concentration Is on the Rise and Widespread Over Most Industries”

A Second Gilded Age: The Consolidation of Wealth and Corporate Power

AMERICAN CONSTITUTION SOCIETY

JUNE 16, 2017