Brianna L. Alderman, Roger D. Blair, Javier D. Donna
{"title":"微软收购动视:既非横向也非纵向","authors":"Brianna L. Alderman, Roger D. Blair, Javier D. Donna","doi":"10.1002/mde.4547","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>We study the Microsoft–Activision acquisition through the lens of a complementary-product merger. When two complementary good producers consolidate, the merger is not horizontal because the two firms do not produce substitutable goods. Nor is the merger vertical, as neither firm supplies the other. We develop an economic model to study these types of mergers that allows for the possibility of rivals exiting the market. Three main conclusions flow from our analysis. (1) The welfare effects of the Microsoft–Activision acquisition are ambiguous; they depend on several industry factors. (2) One will not obtain the correct welfare effects using an incorrect vertical structure; harm to consumers will typically be larger in a complementary-product merger relative to a vertical one. (3) Consumer harm associated with rivals' exit due to the merger might substantially reduce welfare even if it is a welfare-enhancing merger absent exit. Our analysis provides an analytical roadmap for the antitrust enforcement authorities regarding the theories of harm in complementary-good mergers.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":18186,"journal":{"name":"Managerial and Decision Economics","volume":"46 7","pages":"3713-3728"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Microsoft Acquisition of Activision: Neither Horizontal nor Vertical\",\"authors\":\"Brianna L. Alderman, Roger D. Blair, Javier D. Donna\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/mde.4547\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>We study the Microsoft–Activision acquisition through the lens of a complementary-product merger. When two complementary good producers consolidate, the merger is not horizontal because the two firms do not produce substitutable goods. Nor is the merger vertical, as neither firm supplies the other. We develop an economic model to study these types of mergers that allows for the possibility of rivals exiting the market. Three main conclusions flow from our analysis. (1) The welfare effects of the Microsoft–Activision acquisition are ambiguous; they depend on several industry factors. (2) One will not obtain the correct welfare effects using an incorrect vertical structure; harm to consumers will typically be larger in a complementary-product merger relative to a vertical one. (3) Consumer harm associated with rivals' exit due to the merger might substantially reduce welfare even if it is a welfare-enhancing merger absent exit. Our analysis provides an analytical roadmap for the antitrust enforcement authorities regarding the theories of harm in complementary-good mergers.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18186,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Managerial and Decision Economics\",\"volume\":\"46 7\",\"pages\":\"3713-3728\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Managerial and Decision Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mde.4547\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Managerial and Decision Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/mde.4547","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Microsoft Acquisition of Activision: Neither Horizontal nor Vertical
We study the Microsoft–Activision acquisition through the lens of a complementary-product merger. When two complementary good producers consolidate, the merger is not horizontal because the two firms do not produce substitutable goods. Nor is the merger vertical, as neither firm supplies the other. We develop an economic model to study these types of mergers that allows for the possibility of rivals exiting the market. Three main conclusions flow from our analysis. (1) The welfare effects of the Microsoft–Activision acquisition are ambiguous; they depend on several industry factors. (2) One will not obtain the correct welfare effects using an incorrect vertical structure; harm to consumers will typically be larger in a complementary-product merger relative to a vertical one. (3) Consumer harm associated with rivals' exit due to the merger might substantially reduce welfare even if it is a welfare-enhancing merger absent exit. Our analysis provides an analytical roadmap for the antitrust enforcement authorities regarding the theories of harm in complementary-good mergers.
期刊介绍:
Managerial and Decision Economics will publish articles applying economic reasoning to managerial decision-making and management strategy.Management strategy concerns practical decisions that managers face about how to compete, how to succeed, and how to organize to achieve their goals. Economic thinking and analysis provides a critical foundation for strategic decision-making across a variety of dimensions. For example, economic insights may help in determining which activities to outsource and which to perfom internally. They can help unravel questions regarding what drives performance differences among firms and what allows these differences to persist. They can contribute to an appreciation of how industries, organizations, and capabilities evolve.