Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization

Ed. by Azzam, Azzeddine

2 Issues per year

CiteScore 2016: 0.70

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2016: 0.223
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2016: 0.660

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Quantitative Price Tests in Antitrust Market Definition with an Application to the Savory Snacks Markets

Yannis Katsoulacos
  • Corresponding author
  • Department of Economics, Athens University of Economics and Business, 76 Patission Street, Athens 10434, Greece
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Ioanna Konstantakopoulou / Eleni Metsiou / Efthymios Tsionas
Published Online: 2014-02-04 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2013-0022


In this paper, we utilize the complete set of quantitative tests at the disposal of economists for delineating antitrust markets. This includes the Small but Significant Increase in Price (SSNIP) test but also a large number of traditional and newer price co-movement tests. We apply these tests to the savory snacks market using Greek bi-monthly data. This market has been subject to many antitrust investigations because of its market structure and its important implications for consumer welfare. However, no dominant view has yet emerged regarding the appropriate definition of the relevant market. Our results indicate that a wide relevant market definition is appropriate.

Keywords: market definition; quantitative price-co-movement tests; savory snacks market

JEL Code: K21; L40; L66


  • Baker, J. B., and T. F. Bresnahan. 1988. “Estimating the Residual Demand Curve Facing a Single Firm.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 6:283–300. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Bishop, S., and M. Walker. 2002. The Economics of EC Competition Law, Concepts, Application and Measurement. London: Sweet and Maxwell.Google Scholar

  • Boshoff, W. 2007. “Stationarity Tests in Geographic Market Definition: An Application to South African Milk Markets.” South African Journal of Economics 75(1):52–65.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boshoff, W. 2012. “Advances in Price-Time-Series Tests for Market Definition.” Stellenbosh Economic Working Papers: 01/11.Google Scholar

  • Breitung, J. 2000. “The Local Power of Some Unit Root Tests for Panel Data.” In Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration, and Dynamic Panels, Advances in Econometrics, edited by Badi Baltagi, 15, 161–78. Amsterdam: JAI Press.Google Scholar

  • Coe, P., and D. Krause. 2008. “An Analysis of Price-Based Tests of Antitrust Market Delineation.” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 4:983–1007.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Commission Notice on the definition of relevant market for the purposes of Community Competition Law (97/C 372/03). 1997. http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/competition/firms/l26073_en.htm

  • Dickey, D., and W. Fuller. 1979. “Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit Root.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 74:427–31.Google Scholar

  • Elliot, G., T. J. Rothenberg, and J. H. Stock. 1996. “Efficient Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root.” Econometrica 64:813–36.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Euromonitor international database. www.euromonitor.com.

  • European Snack Association international database. www.esa.org.

  • Forni, M. 2004. “Using Stationarity Tests in Antitrust Market Definition.” American Law and Economics Review 6:441–64. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hausman, J., and G. Leonard. 2005. “Competitive Analysis Using a Flexible Demand Specification.” Journal of Competition Law and Economics 1:279–301. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Hosken, D., D. O’Brien, D. Scheffman, and M. Vita. 2002. “Demand System Estimation and Its Application to Horizontal Merger Analysis.” Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Economics. Working paper 246.Google Scholar

  • Im, K. S., H. M. Pesaran, and Y. Shin. 2003. “Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels.” Journal of Econometrics 115:53–74.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johansen, S. 1991. “Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Cointegration Vectors in Gaussian Vector Autoregressive Models.” Econometrica 59:1551–80.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Johansen, S. 1995. Likelihood-Based Inference in Cointegrated Vector Autoregressive Models. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/0198774508.001.0001.Google Scholar

  • Kamerschen, D. R., and J. Kohler. 1993. “Residual Demand Analysis of the Ready-to-Eat Breakfast Cereal Market.” The Antitrust Bulletin 38:903–42.Google Scholar

  • Kantar World Panel. 2009. Research: Core Salty & Nuts Interaction.Google Scholar

  • Kendall, M., and A. Stuart. 1977. The Advanced Theory of Statistics,Vol. 1, 4th edition. London: Griffin.Google Scholar

  • Kwiatkowski, D., P. C. B. Phillips, P. Schmidt, and Y. Shin. 1992. “Testing the Null Hypothesis of Stationarity Against the Alternative of a Unit Root: How Sure Are We That Economic Time Series Have a Unit Root?” Journal of Econometrics 54:159–78.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Levin, A., C.-F. Lin, and C.-S. J. Chu. 2002. “Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite Sample Properties.” Journal of Econometrics 108:1–24.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Maddala, G. S., and S. Wu. 1999. “A Comparative Study of Unit Root Tests with Panel Data and a New Simple Test.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 61:631–52. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Motta, M. 2004. Competition Policy. Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

  • Muris, T., D. Scheffman, and P. Spiller. 1993. Strategy, Structure, and Antitrust in the Carbonated Soft-Drink Industry. Westport, CT: Quorum Books.Google Scholar

  • Newey, W., and K. West. 1994. “Automatic Lag Selection in Covariance Matrix Estimation.” Review of Economic Studies 61:631–53.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • O’Donoghue, R., and J. Padilla. 2007. The Law and Economics of Article 82 EC. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Office of Fair Trading Report. 2001. “The Role of Market Definition in Monopoly and Dominance Inquiries.” Economic Discussion Paper 2 prepared for the Office of Fair Trading by National Economic Research Associates.Google Scholar

  • Pedroni, P. 1999. “Critical Values for Cointegration Tests in Heterogeneous Panels with Multiple Regressor.” Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 61:653–670.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Pedroni, P. 2000. “Fully Modified OLS for Heterogeneous Cointegrated Panels.” In Nonstationary Panels, Panel Cointegration and Dynamic Panels. Advances in Econometrics, edited by Badi H. Baltagi, T. B. Fomby, and R. C. Hill,Vol. 15, 93–130. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. doi:10.1016/S0731-9053(00)15004-2.Google Scholar

  • Pedroni, P. 2001. “Purchasing Power Parity Tests in Cointegrated Panels.” Review of Economics and Statistics 83:727–31.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Phillips, P. C. B. 1998. “New Tools for Understanding Spurious Regressions.” Econometrica 66:1299–326.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Phillips, P. C. B., and B. E. Hansen. 1990. “Statistical Inference in Instrumental Variable Regression with I(1) Processes.” Review of Economic Studies 57:99–125.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Phillips, P. C. B., and P. Perron. 1988. “Testing for a Unit Root in a Time Series Regression.” Biometrika 75:335–46. .CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Salvetti & Llombart research.December 2004. “On the Delineation of the Savory Snacks Market.” Greece.Google Scholar

  • Sims, C. A. 1980. “Macroeconomics and Reality.” Econometrica 48:1–48.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stigler, G. J., and R. A. Sherwin. 1985. “The Extent of the Market.” The Journal of Law and Economics 28:555–85.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Toda, H. Y., and T. Yamamoto. 1995. “Statistical Inference in Vector Autoregressions with Possibly Integrated Processes.” Journal of Econometrics 66:225–50.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Werden, G. J., and L. M. Froeb. 1993. “Correlation, Causality and All That Jazz: The Inherent Shortcomings of Price Tests for Antitrust Market Delineation.” Review of Industrial Organization 8:329–53.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Prof. Y. Katsoulacos and E. Metsiou acknowledge support from the European Union (European Social Fund – ESF) and Greek national funds through the Operational Program “Education and Lifelong Learning” of the National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) – Research Funding Program: Thalis – Athens University of Economics and Business – Thalis – Athens University of Economics and Business – NEW METHODS IN THE ANALYSIS OF MARKET COMPETITION: OLIGOPOLY, NETWORKS AND REGULATION.

Published Online: 2014-02-04

Published in Print: 2014-01-01

Citation Information: Journal of Agricultural & Food Industrial Organization, Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages 1–33, ISSN (Online) 1542-0485, ISSN (Print) 2194-5896, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/jafio-2013-0022.

Export Citation

©2014 by De Gruyter. Copyright Clearance Center

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in