The Flawed Analysis Underlying Calls for Antitrust Reform: An Assessment of Lina Khan’s Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox

Q2 Social Sciences
R. Atkinson, Michael R. Ward
{"title":"The Flawed Analysis Underlying Calls for Antitrust Reform: An Assessment of Lina Khan’s Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox","authors":"R. Atkinson, Michael R. Ward","doi":"10.1177/0003603X231163011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In her law journal article Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, Lina Khan argued, using Amazon as an example, that current antitrust doctrine cannot identify certain types of anticompetitive conduct in platform and data-driven markets and, consequently, reforming antitrust is necessary to correct these deficiencies. Khan’s analysis of Amazon’s conduct and the conclusions she drew from it are flawed because she ignored or misapplied the economics of two-sided markets, mischaracterized competitive conditions, and did not consider the pro-competitive effects of Amazon’s conduct. In this article, we review the economics of two-sided markets and then assess Khan’s analysis of alleged predation in e-books and in the online sale of diapers, as well as alleged anticompetitive implications of Amazon’s vertical integration into logistics and its use of data. A careful assessment of Amazon’s conduct does not support Khan’s conclusion that antitrust reform is necessary because she has not demonstrated that Amazon’s conduct is anticompetitive.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"68 1","pages":"205 - 233"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X231163011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In her law journal article Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox, Lina Khan argued, using Amazon as an example, that current antitrust doctrine cannot identify certain types of anticompetitive conduct in platform and data-driven markets and, consequently, reforming antitrust is necessary to correct these deficiencies. Khan’s analysis of Amazon’s conduct and the conclusions she drew from it are flawed because she ignored or misapplied the economics of two-sided markets, mischaracterized competitive conditions, and did not consider the pro-competitive effects of Amazon’s conduct. In this article, we review the economics of two-sided markets and then assess Khan’s analysis of alleged predation in e-books and in the online sale of diapers, as well as alleged anticompetitive implications of Amazon’s vertical integration into logistics and its use of data. A careful assessment of Amazon’s conduct does not support Khan’s conclusion that antitrust reform is necessary because she has not demonstrated that Amazon’s conduct is anticompetitive.
反垄断改革呼声背后的缺陷分析:对莉娜·汗《亚马逊反垄断悖论》的评估
莉娜·汗(Lina Khan)在她的法律期刊文章《亚马逊的反垄断悖论》(Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox)中以亚马逊为例指出,目前的反垄断原则无法识别平台和数据驱动市场中某些类型的反竞争行为,因此,改革反垄断是纠正这些缺陷的必要之举。可汗对亚马逊行为的分析和她从中得出的结论是有缺陷的,因为她忽视或错误地应用了双边市场的经济学,错误地描述了竞争条件,没有考虑亚马逊行为的亲竞争效应。在这篇文章中,我们回顾了双边市场的经济学,然后评估了可汗对电子书和纸尿裤在线销售中所谓的掠夺行为的分析,以及亚马逊垂直整合物流及其数据使用的反竞争影响。对亚马逊行为的仔细评估并不支持汗的结论,即反垄断改革是必要的,因为她没有证明亚马逊的行为是反竞争的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Antitrust Bulletin
Antitrust Bulletin Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信