WORKING 

 PAPERS

The Welfare Effects of Use-or-Lose 

Provisions in Markets with Dominant Firms

Ian Gale

Daniel O’Brien

WORKING PAPER NO. 299

February 2010

___________________________________________________________________________

FTC Bureau of Economics working papers are preliminary materials circulated to stimulate discussion

and critical comment. The analyses and conclusions set forth are those of the authors and do not

necessarily reflect the views of other members of the Bureau of Economics, other Commission staff, or

the Commission itself. Upon request, single copies of the paper will be provided. References in

publications to FTC Bureau of Economics working papers by FTC economists (other than

acknowledgment by a writer that he has access to such unpublished materials) should be cleared with the

author to protect the tentative character of these papers.

______________________________________________________________________________

BUREAU OF ECONOMICS

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20580
The Welfare Effects of Use-or-Lose

Provisions in Markets with Dominant Firms∗

Ian Gale† Dan O’Brien‡

February 1, 2010

Abstract: A use-or-lose provision requires firms to employ a certain minimum

fraction of their productive capacity. Variants have been used by regulators

in the airline, natural gas transmission, and electric power industries, among

others. The primary objective of these provisions is to limit capacity hoarding.

We examine the welfare implications of imposing a use-or-lose provision on

firms that are able to buy and sell capacity. We find that imposing such a

constraint makes it more likely that a dominant firm will purchase capacity

from a competitive fringe. Moreover, imposing the constraint makes aggregate

output fall if the dominant firm is more efficient than the fringe. If the dominant

firm is less efficient than the fringe, aggregate output rises. In both cases, total

surplus can rise or fall.

Keywords: Dominant firm, use-or-lose provision, acquisition, merger, divestiture.

∗The authors thank Ken Hendricks, Dan Hosken, and Chris Metcalf for helpful comments. The views

expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Federal Trade Commission.

†Department of Economics, Georgetown University.

‡U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

1
1 Introduction

In an industry with scarce capacity, a large firm may profit from leaving some of its capacity

idle and holding output below the socially optimal level.1If rivals and potential entrants

are capacity constrained, they will be unable to expand to offset the output restriction.

This situation can arise for several reasons. Capacity may be limited by infrastructure,

leaving individual firms with little ability to expand. The airline industry provides some

examples.2 Capital may be lumpy, or subject to large increasing returns to scale, making

it uneconomical for an individual firm to expand capacity. Natural gas pipelines are an

example. Capacity may be fixed by exogenous technical factors, as with radio spectrum.

In all of these cases, there may be some ability to increase capacity through improvements

in technology, but it is limited, at least in the short run.

Antitrust and regulatory authorities have historically been concerned with two types

of market failures in industries with limited capacity. One concern is simply the welfare

loss that occurs if one firm is dominant and restricts output. A second concern is that

unfettered trading of capacity may place too much capacity in the hands of the dominant

firm. Suppose that a dominant firm wishes to purchase capacity from a higher-cost fringe

firm. Policy authorities then face a dilemma: on the one hand, society would benefit from

shifting production to a lower-cost firm; on the other hand, because the dominant firm

has market power, it may hold some of the acquired capacity idle and restrict output.

Antitrust or regulatory authorities often block acquisitions by dominant firms if the cost

savings are too small to counter the projected output restriction. This remedy is not ideal,

as it prevents capital movements that would reduce industry costs, but it is a second-best

solution if blocking transactions is the only policy instrument available.

A potential solution to both problems (distortions in the output and capacity trading

markets) is to regulate prices, as was done in both the airline and natural gas industries for

decades. In principle, price regulation prevents the dominant firm from restricting output;

1The first formal analysis of dominant firm behavior appears to be that of Stigler (1940). He showed

that a dominant firm competing with a price-taking competitive fringe restricts output by an amount that

depends on the elasticities of market demand and fringe supply.

2At many airports, capacity is limited in the short run by the number of runways and gates, although

the number of seats on a plane is variable; airspace is limited, even in the long run. Safety considerations

ultimately determine long-run capacity (given the infrastructure).

2
if prices are set correctly, it will also encourage trades that transfer capacity to the most

efficient firms. However, price regulation has well-known shortcomings, and for this reason

it is generally reserved for natural monopoly industries.3

An alternative approach is to pursue policies designed to increase firms’ capacity usage

directly. In this paper, we explore the welfare consequences of two such policies, one

used by regulators and another used by antitrust authorities. First, in several industries

with scarce capacity, regulators employ use-or-lose provisions, which require that each firm

utilize a certain minimum fraction of its capacity. Use-or-lose provisions appear to address

both distortions as they encourage dominant firms to increase output and they constrain

output reductions following the acquisition of fringe capacity. Second, antitrust authorities

often remedy potentially anticompetitive mergers by requiring the merged firm to supply

or divest capacity to rivals. These remedies amount to use-or-lose provisions in which the

usage requirement is imposed only on the acquired capacity and is fulfilled by the firms

that employ the capacity after divestiture.

The history of capacity regulation in the airline industry sheds light on the issues

surrounding use-or-lose provisions and provides the primary motivation for this paper.4

Physical capacity limits the number of hourly operations at several airports in the U.S.

In 1969, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) established the High Density

Rule (HDR), which limited the number of take-offs and landings during certain hours at

Kennedy, LaGuardia, Newark, Washington National and O’Hare Airports.5 The HDR

created rights to take-off and land—called “slots”—to allocate supply.

3Regulation of the airline and natural gas industries was widely believed to be counter-productive, so

both industries were deregulated in the 1970s and 1980s. For a discussion of the problems associated with

price regulation in markets that are not natural monopolies, see Breyer (1982).

4Many industries have been subject to use-or-lose provisions imposed by regulators, including the natural gas transmission, electric power transmission, wireless communications, and airline industries, among

others. In the natural gas industry, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order No. 636 requires pipelines to facilitate the sale of unused capacity. In the electricity industry, FERC Order No. 888-A

indicated that if a customer withholds capacity with anticompetitive effects, FERC may require that the

capacity be returned to the transmission company. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC)

has enforced “loading” requirements for some wireless communication services to prevent hoarding of radio

spectrum. For example, mobile radio operators faced a minimum use requirement per channel. (See 47

C.F.R. Part 90, 631 (Oct. 1, 2001).) Water rights, mineral leases, and fishing quotas have also been subject

to use-or-lose provisions.

5See Federal Aviation Regulations Amendment No. 93-13, 33 Fed. Reg. 17896 (December 3, 1968).

3
The HDR initially allocated slots through unanimous agreement by a committee of air

carriers. This system was cumbersome, and the FAA recognized that the committees were

not “functioning in a manner which provides for the efficient allocation of slots for rapid

adjustment to market conditions and shifting carrier needs and preferences, for adequate

opportunity for expansion of operations, or for new carriers to serve high density airports.”6

In 1985, the FAA addressed the inefficiencies by adopting the “buy-sell rule,” which allowed

carriers to buy, sell, or lease slots, subject to a use-or-lose provision that required carriers to

use slots at least 65 percent of the time over a two-month period or have them withdrawn

and reallocated. The FAA adopted the rule “to permit maximum reliance on market forces

to determine the slot distribution,” stating that a benefit of the rule is that it “minimizes

the need for government intervention in the continuing allocation and distribution of slots.”7

Regarding the use-or-lose provision, the FAA noted that most commenters supported the

provision, citing the need to “prevent large carriers or several large carriers from ‘hoarding’

slots in an attempt to restrict service to drive up fares or to keep smaller competitors from

entering into or expanding in certain markets.”8In other words, there was concern that

airlines might find it profitable to restrict their own output, or they might hoard capacity

to keep rivals from expanding output.

In 1992, the FAA increased the usage requirement from 65 to 80 percent, stating that

“[t]his higher percentage should encourage carriers to hold no more slots than their markets

demand, potentially freeing up underutilized slots for use by other carriers without imposing

impractically stringent use requirements.”9 The details of slot allocation rules have changed

over the years, but the two essential features—slot trading and use-or-lose provisions—

remain, as does the FAA’s justification for use-or-lose provisions.10

Similar issues regarding capacity usage arise in the antitrust context. Merger guidelines

in the U.S. and Europe discuss the potential anticompetitive effects of mergers when rival

650 Fed. Reg. 52181 (December 20, 1985).

7Op. cit., 52184.

8Op. cit., 52188.

957 Fed. Reg. 37310 (August 18, 1992).

10The 80 percent threshold remains in effect as of this writing. See 14 C.F.R. Part 93.227. In a recent

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for dealing with congestion issues at Chicago’s O’Hare airport, the FAA

stated that in the absence of use-or-lose provisions “carriers could hoard existing authorizations to increase

the value of their holdings or simply to deprive competitors of greater access to the airport.” 70 Fed. Reg.

15528 (March 25, 2005).

4
firms face capacity constraints. The U.S. Guidelines observe that a merged firm “may

find it profitable unilaterally to raise price and suppress output,” and that this effect is

more likely if “rival firms face binding capacity constraints that cannot be economically

relaxed.”11 Over the years, numerous mergers in both jurisdictions have been allowed to

go through on the condition that the merged firm divest (or supply) capacity to rival firms,

thereby offsetting the potential harm from the merger.12 These divestitures can be thought

of as use-or-lose provisions applied to the acquired capacity and fulfilled by the buyers of

divested assets.

One possible drawback of divestiture remedies is that the divested capacity may be

less productive in the hands of new firms than it was prior to the merger. For example,

assets may deteriorate while divestitures are being arranged, the buyer may not have the

information needed to employ the assets efficiently, or the merged firm may use an ongoing

relationship with the buyer to limit the buyer’s productivity.13 A study of 85 merger

remedies carried out by the European Commission (2005) found that only 56 percent of

the divestitures were “effective” whereas 31 percent were either “partially effective” or

“ineffective.”14 Further, it found that the divested business’s market share fell in 57 percent

of the cases, whereas it rose only 23 percent of the time. To the extent that divested capacity

is less productive than it was prior to the merger, forcing a divestiture is analogous to

imposing a use-or-lose provision.15

We study the impact of imposing a use-or-lose provision in a market with a dominant

firm and a capacity-constrained fringe. To address the efficiency of capacity trading and

mergers, we allow firms to buy and sell capacity before production takes place. Thus, we

combine the restriction on capacity usage, which aims to expand output, with the ability

of firms to buy or sell capacity, which aims to put capacity into the hands of the most

11U.S. Merger Guidelines, Section 2.22. See also EC Merger Guidelines, ¶34.

12See, for example, FTC (1999), Motta et al. (2002), European Commission (2005), and Papandropoulos

and Tajana (2007).

13The latter may arise if there is a long-term supply agreement rather than a clean divestiture. See FTC

(1999), Balto and Parker (2000), or Baer and Redcay (2000).

14FTC (1999) found that 28 of 37 divestitures it studied were successful in the sense that the divested

assets created viable competitors in the relevant market. In the other 9 cases, the divested assets left the

market.

15Both measures yield some output from capacity that would otherwise be idle, but less than the maximum possible.

5
efficient firms. To our knowledge, this paper is the first to study the welfare effects of using

these policies together.

One might expect that imposing a use-or-lose provision would induce a firm with excess

capacity either to increase its output or to sell some of its capacity in order to come into

compliance, as suggested by the FAA. However, these strategies raise aggregate output and

lower price. An alternative compliance strategy is to purchase capacity from the fringe and

use it in production, thereby increasing the fraction of the dominant firm’s capacity that is

used. This turns out to be a more profitable way to comply with the constraint because it

does not require an increase in aggregate output. Consistent with this logic, we find that

the dominant firm is more likely to purchase capacity when a use-or-lose provision is in

force. In fact, if the dominant firm and fringe firms have equal marginal costs, a use-or-lose

provision will cause the dominant firm to purchase exactly the amount of capacity required

to leave aggregate output unchanged (i.e., at the pre-regulation level). If the dominant

firm has a cost advantage, then tightening the use-or-lose constraint induces the firm to

acquire more capacity, which reduces aggregate output. That is, even though a use-or-lose

provision increases the dominant firm’s usage of any given amount of capacity, it induces

the dominant firm to buy enough additional capacity that aggregate output falls. Total

surplus may also fall if the dominant firm’s cost advantage is not too large.

We do find one important case in which use-or-lose provisions benefit consumers—when

the dominant firm is less efficient than fringe firms. In this case, the dominant firm has an

incentive to sell capacity to the fringe in the absence of a use-or-lose provision. Although a

binding use-or-lose constraint may induce the dominant firm to buy capacity, the dominant

firm increases its output by enough to increase aggregate output. Total surplus may still

fall, however, since output may be transferred from fringe firms to the less-efficient dominant

firm.

Now consider a merger case in which a dominant firm has acquired capacity with the

condition that some fraction of the capacity must be divested. The divestiture requirement

will simply cause the dominant firm to acquire more capacity than it otherwise would,

with the result that aggregate output is unaffected by the divestiture requirement. Now

suppose that divestitures are less than 100 percent effective in the sense that divested

6
capacity becomes less productive. Transferring 100 percent of the acquired capacity to the

fringe, but having it generate only X percent as much output, is isomorphic to transferring

X < 100 percent of the acquired capacity, but having it generate as much output as the

other capacity. It follows that a policy of resolving mergers via divestitures of capacity may

be ineffective if divested capacity is less productive.

In many of the cases in which capacity hoarding is a concern, there are multiple firms

with market power. For example, many domestic U.S. airline routes are served by two

large firms. This observation motivates an extension of our results to duopoly with a

competitive fringe. We find that the qualitative results are similar to those with a single

dominant firm. For instance, the firms are more likely to acquire capacity when there is a

binding use-or-lose constraint than when not. If the constraint binds for both duopolists,

and if the duopolists have lower marginal costs than the fringe, total output falls when the

constraint is tightened. If both duopolists have higher marginal costs than the fringe, total

output rises when the use-or-lose constraint is tightened. The impact on total surplus can

go either way.

Capacity acquisition and use-or-lose provisions are the two essential elements of the

current paper. Several papers have considered the impact of just one of these features.

Capacity acquisition was the focus of Gale and O’Brien (2001), which studied a dominant

firm and a competitive fringe producing in two markets.16 The basic model of capacity

acquisition and production parallels the model here, but the focus of the current paper is

different because of the use-or-lose provision.

Krishna (1993) was interested in whether a dominant firm would outbid potential entrants for capacity that comes available exogenously. She found that the dominant firm

would only acquire the last unit of capacity in a sequential auction against equally efficient

entrants. We consider a one-time acquisition of existing capacity and get similar qualitative

results if there is no use-or-lose provision.17 Once again, the major difference is that we

also consider a use-or-lose provision here.

16Some of the existing capacity was productive in both markets. The motivation for that paper was

the Specialized Mobile Radio industry in which some frequencies were used for paging services but others

could be used for both paging and cellular telephony.

17The dominant firm acquired the last unit in her model because of the discreteness of capacity.

7
Other papers have examined variants of the use-or-lose provision. For instance, Gale

(1993) considered a noncooperative joint venture, which essentially involved a use-or-lose

provision that required firms to use 100 percent of their capacity. (Rivals were permitted

to use a firm’s unused capacity.) We consider a range of requirements here (i.e., not just

100 percent), and sale of capacity is also permitted.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 develops a model of

capacity acquisition with a dominant firm and analyzes the benchmark case with no useor-lose provision in force. Section 3 introduces the use-or-lose provision and examines its

effects in both the regulatory and merger contexts. Welfare implications are investigated

in Section 4. The case of duopoly is considered in Section 5. Concluding remarks are in

Section 6.

2 The Basic Model

The market has a single dominant firm and a competitive fringe. The dominant firm has a

marginal cost of c up to its capacity, k. Each unit of capacity enables a firm to produce one

unit of output. The dominant firm is unconstrained in that its desired output is no greater

than k. The fringe consists of a continuum of capacity-constrained firms with marginal

cost equal to cf up to their individual capacities. Fringe firms may vary in size, but each is

small enough to be considered a price-taker. Aggregate capacity for the fringe equals f.

18

Inverse demand for the good is given by a strictly decreasing function, P(·), with a finite

choke price.

The firms have the opportunity to buy or sell capacity before production takes place.

We model capacity acquisition and production decisions as a three-stage game. In the first

stage, the dominant firm announces how much capacity it wishes to buy or sell. Next, the

fringe firms decide individually whether to trade with the dominant firm at the marketclearing price for capacity.19 Finally, in the third stage, the dominant firm and the fringe

18We will implicitly assume that f is large enough that there is an interior solution in the capacity

acquisition game.

19Instead of imposing market-clearing as the condition for determining price, we could allow fringe firms

to receive individual offers and decide unilaterally whether to accept or reject them. In this model, one can

show that if each fringe firm observes the total mass of firms receiving offers, then any perfect Bayesian

8
firms choose their outputs.

We look for a subgame-perfect Nash equilibrium. At the production stage, the dominant

firm will choose a quantity to maximize its profit, given the fringe output. Fringe behavior

is straightforward since it is optimal to produce up to capacity as long as the output price

exceeds cf (which we assume) since the fringe firms are price-takers. At the acquisition

stages, purchase or sale decisions and acceptance decisions must be optimal, given the

anticipated behavior at subsequent stages.

2.1 The Benchmark Case

We begin the analysis with the benchmark case in which there is no use-or-lose provision.

This case provides context and motivation for the imposition of a use-or-lose provision, and

it also provides the equilibrium characterization for cases in which the use-or-lose provision

does not bind.

Let x denote the dominant firm’s (net) purchase of capacity from the fringe. The firm’s

profit from production is then

π(x) ≡ max

0≤q≤k+x

P(q + f − x)q − cq, (1)

since the fringe will produce f − x. The following assumption guarantees that the profitmaximizing quantity is unique.

Assumption 1 P(q + f − x)q − cq is strictly quasi-concave for q ∈ (0, k + x), given

x ∈ (−k, f).

This assumption, which holds if the firm’s marginal revenue is strictly decreasing, ensures

that the dominant firm’s profit function is single-peaked for any level of capacity acquisition.

The first-order condition for an interior solution takes the form

P

0

(q + f − x)q + P(q + f − x) − c = 0, (2)

equilibrium yields the market-clearing price for capacity. See Gale and O’Brien (2001), Lemma 1.

9
for given x.

20 The second-order necessary condition is:

P

00(q + f − x)q + 2P0

(q + f − x) ≤ 0. (3)

Given Assumption 1, (3) will be satisfied with a strict inequality when q satisfies (2). Let

q(x) denote the profit-maximizing quantity.

To see how q(x) depends on x, differentiate the first-order condition with respect to x.

This yields

q

0

(x) = P

00(q + f − x)q + P0

(q + f − x)

P00(q + f − x)q + 2P0(q + f − x)

= 1 −

P

0

(q + f − x)

P00(q + f − x)q + 2P0(q + f − x)

.

The denominator is negative so q

0

(x) < 1.

21 If the dominant firm acquires one additional

unit of capacity, it will use the fraction q

0

(x) < 1 and leave the remaining 1 − q

0

(x) idle.

Now turn to the acquisition stage, and consider the relationship between the acquisition

price and the amount of capacity acquired. The dominant firm announces the quantity

that it will buy or sell. The fringe firms then decide individually whether to trade with the

dominant firm.

Suppose that the dominant firm acquires x units of capacity from the fringe. Aggregate

output will then be q(x) + f − x. Let b(x) ≡ P(q(x) + f − x) − cf be the price-cost margin

of a fringe firm when the dominant firm acquires x units of capacity and then produces

optimally. We now show that b(·) is the acquisition price for capacity, which means that

larger acquisitions result in a higher price for output.22

Lemma 1. If the dominant firm submits an order for x

∗ units of capacity, the marketclearing price is b(x

∗

).

Proof. Suppose that the dominant firm submits an order for (and purchases) x

∗ > 0. The

resulting profit in the production game for a fringe firm with a unit of capacity is b(x

∗

).

Thus, if the price of capacity were b < b(x

∗

), those firms that sold would have been better

20We assume that the dominant firm does not end up constrained, which means that it does not sell

a large amount of capacity. As we will see below, the dominant firm would only sell a large amount of

capacity if the fringe were much more efficient.

21When it will not cause confusion, we suppress the arguments of functions such as q(x).

22Since b0

(x) = P

0

(q(x) + f − x)[q

0

(x) − 1], the sign of b

0

(x) is the same as the sign of 1 − q

0

(x), which is

strictly positive.

10
off not selling. Conversely, if the price were b > b(x

∗

), those that did not sell would have

been better off selling. Finally, the fringe firms are indifferent if b = b(x

∗

). It follows that

the dominant firm will pay a price of b(x

∗

) per unit if it submits an order for x

∗ > 0 units.

The analogous arguments go through if the dominant firm sells capacity, so the analysis

applies to x

∗ < 0 as well. Q.E.D.

Let

Φ(x) ≡ π(x) − b(x)x = [P(q(x) + f − x) − c](q(x) − x) + (cf − c)x (4)

denote the dominant firm’s profit from acquiring x units at the market-clearing price and

then selecting the profit-maximizing output.23 The capacity acquisition problem amounts

to the following:

max

−k≤x≤f

Φ(x). (5)

We make one additional assumption.

Assumption 2 The profit from capacity acquisition, Φ(x), is strictly quasi-concave.24

Henceforth, we assume that Assumptions 1-2 hold.

The rate of change of the profit from capacity acquisition is

Φ

0

(x) = π

0

(x) − b(x) − b

0

(x)x. (6)

Using (4) and the first-order condition for production, (2), we can express the first-order

condition for capacity acquisition as

Φ

0

(x) = [1 − q

0

(x)]P

0

(q(x) + f − x)x + cf − c = 0. (7)

Proposition 1. (Gale and O’Brien, 2001). The dominant firm buys (sells) capacity if its

marginal cost of production is lower (higher) than the fringe firms’. If marginal costs are

equal, no capacity is traded.

23We are implicitly assuming that the dominant firm will only acquire capacity once. It is conceivable

that, having made a single purchase at b(x), the firm would have an incentive to purchase again. If fringe

firms anticipate this, they will not sell at b(x) initially. The dominant firm could commit not to purchase

again by using a most-favored customer clause. Alternatively, one could construct a dynamic equilibrium

analogous to that in Ausubel and Deneckere (1989), where a seller lacking commitment gets essentially the

same profit as with commitment.

24If P(·) is linear, for example, Φ(·) is strictly concave.

11
Proof. Using Φ0

(x) from (7) and evaluating at x = 0, we see that Φ0(0) > (<) 0 if

cf > (<) c, and Φ0(0) = 0 if cf = c. The result then follows from the strict quasi-concavity

of Φ. Q.E.D.

To get some intuition, suppose that marginal costs are equal. Now suppose the dominant

firm purchases one unit of capacity (x = 1). The firm will turn q

0

into production and hold

1 − q

0

idle. Consider the costs and benefits associated with those two quantities. The cost

of acquiring the q

0 units is (P − cf )q0 = (P − c)q0

, since the price of capacity is the fringe

margin and marginal costs are equal. The benefit from the q

0 units of production is also

(P −c)q

0

, since the dominant firm earns P −c on each unit sold. Thus, the cost and benefit

of buying and using the q

0 units balance out. The cost of acquiring the 1 − q0 units that

will be held idle is (P − c)[1 − q

0

], and the benefit is −P

0

q[1 − q

0

], the additional revenue

from the inframarginal units of output, which results from lowering aggregate output by

1 − q

0

. This cost and benefit also cancel out because the original quantity was chosen to

maximize the dominant firm’s profits so a marginal reduction in q has no first-order effect.

(Formally, the net effect is −(P + P

0

q − c)[1 − q

0

] = 0.) Putting these arguments together,

the dominant firm receives no first-order gain from buying a unit of capacity and holding

1 − q

0

idle.

If cf 6= c, the dominant firm will buy or sell. A rise in cf lowers the acquisition price, all

else equal. Thus, a dominant firm that is more efficient than the fringe will buy capacity.

Conversely, a less-efficient dominant firm will sell.

One of the rationales for employing use-or-lose provisions is to ensure that capacity

acquisitions increase consumer and total surplus. To motivate this objective, we now

evaluate the impact of capacity acquisitions in the absence of use-or-lose provisions. The

effect of acquisitions on consumer surplus is straightforward. Aggregate output is Q(x) ≡

q(x) + f − x, which is decreasing in x since q

0

(x) < 1. Therefore, in the absence of a useor-lose provision, any capacity acquisition by an unconstrained dominant firm will reduce

consumer surplus. For instance, if the dominant firm is more efficient than the fringe,

consumer surplus will fall.

Total surplus is given by

T S(x) ≡

Z q(x)+f−x

0

P(z)dz − cq(x) − cf [f − x]. (8)

12
The derivative with respect to x is

T S0(x) = [P(q(x) + f − x) − c][q

0

(x) − 1] + cf − c. (9)

This yields the following proposition.

Proposition 2. In the absence of a use-or-lose provision: A) Any capacity acquisition by

the dominant firm reduces consumer surplus; and B) fixing cf , there exists c < cf such that

the dominant firm’s equilibrium capacity acquisition reduces total surplus if c ∈ (c, cf ).

Proof. Part A follows from the discussion in the preceding paragraph. To establish part B,

first note that the dominant firm purchases a positive amount of fringe capacity if c < cf

(Proposition 1). From (9), T S0(x) < 0 if cf = c < P. More generally, T S0(x) < 0 if

P(q(x) + f −x)[q

0

(x)−1] + cf < cq0(x). It follows that there exists a neighborhood, (c, cf ),

such that capacity acquisitions reduce social surplus if c falls in this neighborhood. Q.E.D.

The importance of Proposition 2 is that there is a range of cost parameters such that the

transfer of capacity to the dominant firm would be socially efficient only if policy authorities

could mitigate the dominant firm’s incentive to restrict output. This provides a motivation

for use-or-lose provisions.

3 Imposition of a Use-or-Lose Provision

We now examine the impact of use-or-lose provisions in a market with a dominant firm.

The focus is on the regulatory context, but we will provide applications to the antitrust

context as well.

3.1 Use-or-Lose Provisions in the Regulatory Context

The use-or-lose provision takes the following form:

Condition UL If a firm has  ̃k units of capacity, its output must satisfy q ≥ α ̃k, where

α ∈ (0, 1).

The UL provision requires that the firm employ at least a fraction α of its capacity.25 Fringe

firms produce up to capacity anyway, so the provision will not affect their behavior.

25The regulator observes capacities and outputs so the constraint is enforced perfectly.

13
The dominant firm’s output now solves the following problem:

max

q≥α(k+x)

[P(q + f − x) − c] q. (10)

In equilibrium, the price of capacity is again the fringe’s margin, P − cf .

We begin with an intuitive argument showing that the dominant firm will buy fringe

capacity when UL binds and c = cf . The argument parallels that of the benchmark case,

but with a different conclusion. A binding UL constraint means that the dominant firm

produces q = αk, absent any acquisition. Suppose that the dominant firm purchases one

unit of capacity (x = 1). It will turn q

0 = α into production and take 1 − q0 = 1 − α off the

market. The cost of acquiring the q

0 units is (P − cf )q0 = (P − c)q0

, and the benefit from

the q

0 units of production is also (P − c)q0

. The cost of acquiring the 1 − q

0 units that will

be held idle is (P − c)[1 − q

0

], and the benefit is −P

0

q[1 − q

0

], the additional revenue from

the inframarginal units of output. The net effect is −(P + P

0

q − c)[1 − q

0

], which is greater

than zero since q exceeds the unconstrained profit-maximizing quantity. Thus, there is an

incentive to buy capacity when marginal costs are equal and UL binds.

The dominant firm will buy capacity unless the fringe has a sufficiently large cost

advantage. This means that the dominant firm is more likely to acquire capacity when a

binding use-or-lose provision is in place than when not. Rather than providing an incentive

to sell excess capacity to come into compliance, the UL provision actually enhances the

incentive to acquire capacity.

We now examine formally the impact of imposing and tightening a use-or-lose provision.

A change of variables simplifies the analysis. Let y ≡ α(k + x) − x denote the “variable

component” of output when the UL constraint binds and the dominant firm acquires x

units of capacity. (This quantity represents the dominant firm’s net impact on output.)

Aggregate output is then α(k + x) + f − x = y + f and x =

αk−y

1−α

. The dominant firm’s

profit can therefore be written as

[P(y + f) − c]α(k + x) − [P(y + f) − cf ]x = [P(y + f) − c]y + (cf − c)x. (11)

The firm gets the price-cost margin on the variable component of output, with a correction

for the difference in marginal cost for the capacity purchased. Substituting for x and

14
rearranging, (11) becomes

P(y + f)y −

cf − αc

1 − α

y −

c − cf

1 − α

αk. (12)

We now have the capacity acquisition problem:

max

k≥y≥αk−(1−α)f

P(y + f)y −

cf − αc

1 − α

y −

c − cf

1 − α

αk.26 (13)

The first-order condition for an interior solution is

P

0

(y + f)y + P(y + f) −

(cf − αc)

1 − α

= 0, (14)

and the second-order necessary condition is

P

00(y + f)y + 2P0

(y + f) ≤ 0. (15)

Let

φ(y, α, c, cf ) ≡ P

0

(y + f)y + P(y + f) −

cf − αc

1 − α

, (16)

and let y(α) ≡ α(k +x(α))−x(α) denote the equilibrium value of y. Totally differentiating

(16) with respect to α yields

y

0

(α) = −φα

φy

|y=y(α) =

cf −c

(1−α)

2

P00y + 2P0

=

cf − c

(1 − α)

2

(P00y + 2P0)

. (17)

We now summarize how the UL constraint affects aggregate output.

Proposition 3. Imposing or tightening a binding UL constraint has no effect on aggregate

output if cf = c; it lowers (raises) aggregate output if cf > (<) c.

Proof. When the constraint binds, aggregate output is α(k +x(α)) + [f −x(α)] = y(α) +f,

which changes with α at the rate y

0

(α). The denominator in (17) is negative, by the

second-order necessary condition and Assumption 1, so the sign of y

0

(α) is the opposite

of the sign of cf − c. This shows that tightening a binding UL constraint has the stated

effect. Starting from the value of α at which the constraint just begins to bind shows that

imposing a constraint has the stated effect. Q.E.D.

When marginal costs are equal, Proposition 3 implies that y

0

(α) = 0. By definition,

y

0

(α) = k + x(α) + (α − 1)x

0

(α) = 0 ⇒ x

0

(α) = k+x(α)

1−α > 0. An immediate implication is

that a tighter constraint induces more capacity acquisition.

26The upper bound on purchases is x = f, which gives y = αk − (1 − α)f.

15
Corollary 1. Suppose that cf = c. Imposing or tightening a binding UL constraint raises

the amount of capacity acquired by the dominant firm.

These results can be explained by comparing the profitability of different strategies for

complying with the UL constraint. Suppose that cf = c. Absent a UL constraint, the

dominant firm would not buy or sell capacity, so it would produce q(0). Now suppose

that there is a binding UL constraint, so q(0) < αk. Consider three ways to comply

with the constraint. First, the dominant firm could simply increase its output, so that

q = αk > q(0). Second, the dominant firm could sell capacity to the fringe and then produce

q = α(k+x). Third, the dominant firm could acquire capacity and employ this new capacity

in production; that is, acquire x > 0 and produce q such that q = q(0) + x = α(k + x).

The first two strategies increase aggregate output, while the third leaves aggregate output

unchanged. In fact, the first two hurt the dominant firm relative to the benchmark case,

while the third leaves its profit unchanged.27 In a sense, the dominant firm buys capacity

now because the cost of purchasing any given amount is lower with a binding UL constraint

than without. The constraint commits the dominant firm to produce a certain amount of

output, which lowers the purchase price, all else equal.

The preceding discussion means that when cf = c, the dominant firm will acquire

and employ enough capacity to satisfy the constraint, leaving output unchanged from the

benchmark case. As α rises, more capacity must be acquired to come into compliance.

Aggregate output remains at q(0) + f, however.

An increase in fringe marginal cost lowers the acquisition price of capacity, which equals

the fringe margin. The dominant firm will then have a heightened incentive to acquire

capacity, and aggregate output will drop. (Consumer surplus will drop as well.) If the

fringe marginal cost falls, the capacity acquisition price rises, and the dominant firm will

acquire less capacity. Aggregate output (and consumer surplus) will rise.

To explain the impact of tightening the constraint, it is again helpful to think in terms of

the dominant firm choosing the variable component of aggregate output, y = α(k + x) − x.

The effective marginal cost of y is  ̃c ≡

cf −αc

1−α

(see (12)). The effective marginal cost changes

27If the dominant firm acquires x and satisfies the UL constraint, its profit from capacity acquisition is

[P(α(k + x) − x + f) − c][α(k + x) − x]. Absent the UL constraint, its profit is [P(q + f) − c]q. The latter

is maximized at q(0), so the former is maximized when α(k + x) − x = q(0).

16
at the rate

∂c ̃

∂α =

cf − c

(1 − α)

2

. (18)

Thus,  ̃c is increasing (decreasing) in α if cf > (<) c. For instance, tightening the constraint

lowers the effective marginal cost when cf < c, increasing the dominant firm’s incentive to

acquire capacity. Aggregate output falls in this case. It is noteworthy that tightening the

constraint reduces output precisely when the dominant firm has lower production costs.

The acquisition would be efficient if the authority could induce the dominant firm to employ enough of it. When cf > c, Proposition 3 shows that a use-or-lose provision does

not accomplish this objective, and it makes matters worse for consumers by inducing the

dominant firm to acquire and hoard even more capacity.

Firms often become dominant precisely because they are more efficient than fringe firms.

However, there are clearly situations in which the fringe firms have lower costs than the

dominant firm.28 In these cases, tightening the UL constraint benefits consumers, although

it does not necessarily increase total surplus, as we show in Section IV below.

3.2 Use-or-Lose Provisions in the Antitrust Context - Partial

Divestitures

When the dominant firm produces at lower cost than fringe firms, society benefits when a

unit of production is transferred from the fringe to the dominant firm. However, acquisitions

that facilitate this transfer also reduce aggregate output. Antitrust authorities often remedy

this problem by requiring some or all of the capacity acquired through merger to be divested

to (and used by) rivals.

Although merger remedies typically include assets intended to be sufficient to prevent

the merger from harming consumers, in practice, divested capacity sometimes generates

less output after the divestiture than it did prior to the acquisition.29 A simple way to

capture this in our model is to assume that a divesture of x units of capacity effectively

increases fringe capacity by just (1 − λ)x units, where λ measures the productivity decline

in units of output from transferring capacity to the fringe.30 A divestiture in which capacity

28Southwest Airlines likely provides an example.

29See the discussion and references in the introduction.

30We do not mean to suggest that all divestiture remedies are unproductive. See Tenn & Jun (2009) for a

17
becomes less productive in this sense is isomorphic in our model to a partial divestiture in

which a fraction of the acquired capacity is divested to fringe firms. Thus, we can examine

the effect of divestitures that are less-than-fully productive by studying partial divestitures

of (fully productive) capacity:

Condition PD If the dominant firm acquires x > 0 units of capacity, it must divest

(1 − λ)x units to fringe firms, where λ ∈ (0, 1).31

Suppose that the dominant firm has acquired x > 0 units of capacity from the fringe and

must divest some of it. Under PD, the acquisition of x units of capacity ultimately reduces

fringe capacity by just x − (1 − λ)x = λx. Since the dominant firm is not otherwise constrained, its profit-maximizing output is q(λx), the optimal quantity in the benchmark case

when it acquires λx units of capacity from the fringe. A low (high) value of λ corresponds

to the divested capacity being (not) very productive.

Letting z = λx, the dominant firm’s objective function can be written as

Φ(z) ≡ π(z) − b(z)z = [P(q(z) + f − z) − c](q(z) − z) + (cf − c)z. (19)

The firm’s capacity acquisition problem here is isomorphic to the acquisition problem in the

benchmark case with no use-or-lose constraint, except that the upper bound on acquisitions

changes. We therefore have the following proposition:

Proposition 4. A PD constraint has no effect on aggregate output or on the allocation of

output between the dominant firm and the fringe.

Let z

∗ = arg max0≤z≤λf Φ(z). The dominant firm will want to acquire x∗ = z∗/λ units

of capacity, which is enough to reduce aggregate output to q(z

∗

) − z

∗ + f. (This is feasible

if x

∗ = z∗/λ ≤ f.) The intuition for this result is straightforward. The dominant firm

simply adjusts its actual purchase (x) to generate its desired net purchase (z = λx), given

the required divestiture. In particular, the divestiture fails to achieve the objective of

promoting cost-saving acquisitions without the associated reduction in output. Of course,

if fringe capacity is low enough or the amount divested is high enough (i.e., the productivity

recent counter-example. We simply wish to explore the implications of divestitures that are less-than-fully

productive for the allocation and employment of capacity in a market with a dominant firm.

31It will not matter that capacity acquired by the dominant firm also becomes less productive since that

firm will have excess capacity.

18
of the transferred capacity is high enough), there will be a boundary solution in which the

dominant firm purchases f and does not completely undo the impact of the PD constraint.32

4 Total Surplus

When the dominant firm and the fringe firms have the same marginal cost, Proposition

3 implies that the UL provision does not affect total surplus. This follows because the

dominant firm adjusts its capacity acquisition in response to changes in α to leave aggregate

output unchanged, and the shift in production does not affect total cost. The UL provision

does affect total surplus when c 6= cf since aggregate output changes, and the allocation of

production across firms also matters.

When UL binds, total surplus can be written as

T S ̃ (α) ≡

Z α(k+x(α))+f−x(α)

0

P(z)dz − cα[k + x(α)] − cf [f − x(α)]

=

Z y(α)+f

0

P(z)dz − cy(α) − cf f + [cf − c]x(α), (20)

since y(α) = α(k + x(α)) − x(α). As UL is tightened, total surplus changes at the rate

T S ̃

0

(α) = y

0

(α)[P − c]

| {z }

+ x

0

(α)[cf − c]

| {z }

.

Output Production

Effect Cost Effect

(21)

Aggregate output changes at the rate y

0

(α), and this brings a benefit of P − c per unit of

output (the “output effect”). The dominant firm’s net purchase rises at the rate x

0

(α), and

it lowers production costs by cf − c per unit purchased (the “production cost effect”).

The output and production cost effects may have opposite signs, making it difficult to

sign the total surplus effects in general. However, it is possible to understand the forces

at work when the UL constraint is just binding and the costs of the dominant and fringe

firms are not too dissimilar.

By the definition of y(α), we have

y

0

(α) = k + x(α) + (α − 1)x

0

(α) ⇒ x

0

(α) = k + x(α) − y

0

(α)

1 − α

. (22)

32Recall that we implicitly assumed in footnote 18 that f was large enough that there was an interior

solution in the capacity acquisition game. Such an assumption may be untenable when λ is small.

19
Low excess capacity (k < k)

^

Total surplus: +

Consumer surplus: -

High excess capacity (k > k)

^

DF cost

advantage

(cf > c )

Fringe cost

advantage

(cf < c )

Total surplus: -

Consumer surplus: -

Total surplus: -

Consumer surplus +

Total surplus: +

Consumer surplus: +

Figure 1: Surplus effects of tightening a just-binding UL constraint when costs are similar.

Let α

∗ be the value of α at which the constraint just begins to bind. Substituting (17) and

(22) into (21) and evaluating at α

∗ yields

sign {T S ̃

0

(α

∗

)} = sign







(P − c)(cf − c)

(1 − α∗)

2

(P00y + 2P0)

| {z }

+

(k + x(α

∗

) − y

0

(α

∗

))(cf − c)

1 − α∗

| {z }







.

Output Production

Effect Cost Effect

(23)

Suppose that cf ≈ c. Then, y

0

(α

∗

) ≈ 0 (by (17)) and x(α

∗

) ≈ 0, so the production cost

effect has the same sign as (cf − c) while the output effect has the opposite sign. The sign

of T S ̃

0

(α

∗

) turns on which effect is larger in absolute value.

There is an inverse relationship between α

∗ and k. If the dominant firm has little

excess capacity in the absence of a UL constraint, α

∗ will be close to 1. In particular, as

the amount of excess capacity goes to zero, α

∗ goes to 1, and the output effect becomes

negligible. On the other hand, as the dominant firm’s excess capacity in the absence of a

UL constraint rises, α

∗ becomes smaller, while the production cost effect rises. It follows

from (23) that there is some value, ˆk, such that the output effect dominates if k < ˆk, and

the production cost effect dominates if k > ˆk.

33

Figure 1 summarizes the total surplus effects and also records the consumer surplus

effects for comparison. A key point is that the effect of tightening the UL constraint on

33When α = α∗ and cf ≈ c, aggregate output is approximately q(0) + f, and the argument on the

right-hand side of (23) is approximately (cf −c)

1−α∗

n

P −c

(1−α∗)(P 00q(0)+2P 0) + k

o

. The term in braces is increasing

in k.

20
both consumer and total surplus depends critically on key parameters (relative costs and

the dominant firm’s capacity). Indeed, total surplus effects depend on both parameters.

Unless a UL policy is made contingent on these parameters, the consumer and total surplus

effects may be positive or negative.

The total surplus effects of PD in Proposition 4 are obvious (assuming large fringe capacity) as the constraint leaves unchanged aggregate output and the allocation of production

across firms. Therefore, PD does not affect total surplus. Welfare-reducing (-enhancing)

acquisitions are still welfare-reducing (-enhancing).

5 Duopoly

Many markets that are subject to use-or-lose provisions have more than one large firm

producing. An airline market may have two major carriers while a pipeline may be used by

several natural gas companies. In order to examine the robustness of our results, we now

consider a duopoly with a competitive fringe.

Absent a UL provision, there are hoarding incentives again, but they are tempered by

free-riding as each duopolist prefers that the other one acquire fringe capacity and keep

it idle. With a binding UL provision, however, the effects are the same as with a single

dominant firm. In particular, tightening the use-or-lose constraint may again raise or lower

aggregate output and total surplus.

Suppose that Cournot duopolists face a competitive fringe. We will use the same notation as in the previous section, with all output and capacity variables indexed by i for firm

i = 1, 2.

As a benchmark, suppose that there is no UL provision in force. Given net purchases

x1 and x2, the fringe will produce f − (x1 + x2), and we write firm i’s equilibrium quantity

as qi(x1 + x2). Now consider the optimal acquisitions. Let

Φ1(x1) ≡ [P(q1(x1+x2)+q2(x1+x2)+f −x1−x2)−c1][q1(x1+x2)−x1]+ (cf −c1)x1 (24)

denote firm 1’s profit from acquiring x1 units and then producing optimally, given that firm

2 has acquired x2 and will produce q2(x1 + x2).

21
The rate of change of firm 1’s profit from capacity acquisition is

Φ

0

1

(x1) = [P − c1][q

0

1

(x1 + x2) − 1] + P

0

[q

0

1

(x1 + x2) + q

0

2

(x1 + x2) − 1][q1(x1 + x2) − x1]

+cf − c1.(25)

Rearranging terms gives

Φ

0

1

(x1) = {P − c1 + P

0

q1(x1 + x2)}[q

0

1

(x1 + x2) − 1] + P

0

q

0

2

(x1 + x2)q1(x1 + x2)

−P

0

[q

0

1

(x1 + x2) + q

0

2

(x1 + x2) − 1]x1 + cf − c1. (26)

At an interior maximum of the production game, the term in braces is zero. This leaves us

with

Φ

0

1

(x1) = P

0

q

0

2

(x1 + x2)q1(x1 + x2) − P

0

[q

0

1

(x1 + x2) + q

0

2

(x1 + x2) − 1]x1 + cf − c1. (27)

We can immediately see one qualitative difference between a duopoly and a market with

a single dominant firm. Suppose that cf = c1 and x1 = 0. We then have

Φ

0

1

(0) = P

0

q

0

2

(x2)q1(x2) < 0. (28)

It follows that firm 1 will sell capacity. (By contrast, a single dominant firm will neither

buy nor sell.) The duopolists will sell because each bears only part of the loss from the

resulting increase in aggregate output.

Now consider a UL constraint that binds for both firms. In the capacity-acquisition

stage, the firms again submit orders and trades take place at the market-clearing price for

capacity.34 Let yi ≡ α(xi + ki) − xi. Firm i faces an acquisition problem analogous to the

dominant firm problem in (13):

max

ki≥yi≥αki−(1−α)(f−xj )

P(y1 + y2 + f)yi −

cf − αci

1 − α

yi −

ci − cf

1 − α

αki. (29)

Letting φ(y, α, ci, cf ) denote the objective function, the first-order conditions now amount

to:

φi(y, α, ci, cf ) ≡ P

0

yi + P −

cf − αci

1 − α

= 0, i = 1, 2. (30)

34We assume that bilateral trades between firms 1 and 2 are not permitted; if they were, one duopolist

could acquire all of the other’s capacity. A plausible motivation for this assumption is that antitrust

authorities would be more likely to block a merger between dominant duopolists than an exchange of

capacity between a duopolist and a fringe firm.

22
Let (y1(α), y2(α)) denote the solution to (30), for given marginal costs. The second-order

necessary condition for firm i is

φii(y, α, ci, cf ) = P

00yi + 2P0 ≤ 0, i = 1, 2. (31)

Meanwhile,

φij (y, α, ci, cf ) = P

00yi + P0

, i = 1, 2; i 6= j. (32)

The case of equal marginal costs is again straightforward. If cf = ci, the first-order

condition simplifies as

P

0

yi + P − ci = 0, i = 1, 2. (33)

The firms will adjust their capacity purchases (or sales) in response to the UL constraint

so as to leave aggregate output unchanged. Once again, the binding constraint makes it

more likely that a dominant firm will acquire capacity.

It is helpful for the next result to assume that P

00yi + P0 ≤ 0. This condition, which

requires that demand not be too convex, is slightly stronger than the second-order necessary

condition. It implies φii < φij ≤ 0 (i.e., own effects dominate cross effects), which yields

the result.

Proposition 5. If P

00yi + P0 ≤ 0, tightening the UL constraint lowers (raises) aggregate

output if the duopolists have lower (higher) marginal costs than the fringe firms.

Proof. Differentiating the firms’ first-order conditions with respect to α yields two equations

in y

0

1

(α) and y

0

2

(α). Solving gives

y

0

i

(α) = −(cf − ci)φjj + (cf − cj )φij

(1 − α)

2

(φ11φ22 − φ12φ21)

, i = 1, 2, j 6= i. (34)

The impact on aggregate output of tightening the UL constraint is therefore

y

0

1

(α) + y

0

2

(α) = −(cf − c1)[φ22 − φ21] − (cf − c2)[φ11 − φ12]

(1 − α)

2

(φ11φ22 − φ12φ21)

. (35)

Note first that φii − φij = P

0 < 0 for i = 1, 2; i 6= j. In addition, P00yi + P0 ≤ 0 implies

φii < φij ≤ 0, which gives φ11φ22 − φ12φ21 > 0. The denominator is positive, so the sign of

the right-hand side is the sign of the numerator. Since φij > φii, tightening the constraint

23
lowers (raises) aggregate output when both duopolists have lower (higher) marginal costs

than the fringe firms do. Q.E.D.

This result shows that total surplus does not change when the UL provision is tightened,

if all firms have the same marginal cost. As with a single dominant firm, the firms buy

more capacity (or sell less) as α rises.

The welfare analysis for the duopoly case yields expressions similar to those for the

dominant firm case. When the constraint binds for both firms in equilibrium, total surplus

can be expressed as

T S(α) ≡

Z y1(α)+y2(α)+f

0

P(z)dz−c1y1(α)−c2y2(α)−cf f+[cf−c1]x1(α)+[cf−c2]x2(α). (36)

As UL is tightened, total surplus changes at the rate

T S0(α) = y

0

1

(α)[P − c1] + y

0

2

(α)[P − c2] + x

0

1

(α)[cf − c1] + x

0

2

(α)[cf − c2]. (37)

Since xi(α) = αki−yi(α)

1−α

, we now have

x

0

i

(α) = (ki − y

0

i

(α))(1 − α) + αki − yi(α)

(1 − α)

2

=

ki + xi(α) − y

0

i

(α)

1 − α

. (38)

It follows that

T S0(α) = y

0

1

(α)[P − c1] + y

0

2

(α)[P − c2] + k1 + x1(α) − y

0

1

(α)

1 − α

[cf − c1]

+

k2 + x2(α) − y

0

2

(α)

1 − α

[cf − c2]. (39)

The qualitative results have similarities to the results with a single dominant firm.

Equation (34) tells us that y

0

i

(α) = 0 if c1 = c2 = cf , so T S0(α) = 0 in that case. Once

again, the constraint has no effect on total surplus when marginal costs are equal. When

marginal costs differ, we have the same pattern of opposing effects as before, with the

tradeoff for each duopolist being the same as it is for a single dominant firm. In that sense,

the results are robust to the inclusion of additional firms with market power.

6 Conclusion

This paper has considered the effects of imposing a use-or-lose provision on firms in an

industry with limited capacity. Forcing a dominant firm to increase its capacity utilization

24
raises aggregate output, all else equal. However, it may also induce the dominant firm to

acquire more capacity from fringe firms, in which case aggregate output may drop. This

incentive must be taken into account when evaluating the effects of use-or-lose provisions in

environments that permit capacity trading such as markets for airport takeoff-and-landing

slots.

Absent a use-or-lose provision, the dominant firm would purchase capacity from the

fringe firms only if it is more efficient than they are. Such purchases would increase total

surplus if the dominant firm employed enough of the acquired capacity, which is what

use-or-lose provisions are designed to accomplish. Use-or-lose provisions encourage the

dominant firm to acquire more capacity precisely when the dominant firm’s acquisition

has potential efficiency benefits (i.e., when the dominant firm is more efficient). Aggregate

output falls in this case. Although the effect on total surplus is not clear cut, the effect

may be negative unless the dominant firm’s cost advantage is sufficiently large.

Use-or-lose provisions encourage the expansion of aggregate output when fringe firms

are more efficient than the dominant firm. However, the output expansion comes at the

cost of shifting production from the fringe to the less-efficient dominant firm. While total

surplus may rise, it does so by encouraging inefficient production.

We also find that remedying capacity acquisitions by the dominant firm via partial

divestitures is ineffective. A partial divestiture can be thought of as a use-or-lose provision

applied to the acquired capacity and fulfilled by the purchasers of divested assets. The

reason partial divestitures are ineffective in our model is that the dominant firm will respond

by purchasing enough additional capacity to offset the requirement completely.

Turning to policy implications, the FAA’s objective in adopting use-or-lose provisions in

1985 was to ensure “the full utilization of slots” and a “more efficient allocation of slots ...

from the competitive slot market,” while “permit[ting] maximum reliance on market forces

to determine slot distribution, ... minimiz[ing] the need for government intervention in the

continuing allocation and distribution of slots.”35 Our results suggest that when there is

a market for slots, use-or-lose provisions cannot be relied upon to provide these benefits.

35See Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, High Density Traffic Airports:

Slot Allocation and Transfer Methods, Final Rule 14 C.F.R. Parts 11 and 93, 50 Fed. Reg. 52184, 52194

(December 20, 1985).

25
Although we find that use-or-lose provisions benefit consumers and raise total surplus for

certain cost parameters, a regulator (e.g., the FAA) is typically not in a position to adjust

its use-or-lose policy in response to changes in these parameters.

Of course, antitrust authorities may be able to address acquisitions on a case-by-case

basis. Our results imply that use-or-lose provisions do not eliminate the need for such

scrutiny. The results also imply that antitrust authorities are justified in taking steps

to ensure that assets divested to remedy dominant firm mergers will be fully productive.

If divested assets will be sufficiently unproductive, and if dominant firms recognize this,

divestiture remedies may be ineffective. Since it may be difficult to guarantee the productivity of divested assets, antitrust authorities might want to block anticompetitive mergers

rather than attempting divestiture remedies, absent good evidence that divestitures will

restore competition.

26
References

Ausubel, L. and R. Deneckere, 1989, “Reputation in Bargaining and Durable Goods

Monopoly,” Econometrica 57, 511-531.

Baer, W. and R. Redcay, 2001, “Solving Competition Problems in Merger Control: The

Requirements for an Effective Divestiture Remedy,” George Washington Law Review,

69, 915-931.

Breyer, S., 1982, Regulation and its Reform, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

European Commission, 2005, “Merger Remedies Study,” DG Competition.

Gale, I., 1994, “Price Competition in Noncooperative Joint Ventures,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 12, 53-69.

Gale, I. and D. O’Brien, 2001, “The Antitrust Implications of Capacity Reallocation by

a Dominant Firm,” The Journal of Industrial Economics, XLIX, 137-160.

Krishna, K., 1993, “Auctions with Endogenous Valuations: The Persistence of Monopoly

Revisited,” American Economic Review, 83, 147-160.

Motta, M., Polo, M. and H. Vasconcelos, 2007, “Merger Remedies in the European Union:

An Overview,” Antitrust Bulletin, 52, 603-631.

Papandropoulos, P. and A. Tajana, 2006, “The Merger Remedies Study–In Divestiture

We Trust?” European Competition Law Review, 8, 443-454.

Parker, R. and D. Balto, 1999, “The Merger Wave: Trends in Merger Enforcement and

Litigation,” The Business Lawyer, 55, 351-404.

Stigler, G., 1940, “Notes on the Theory of Duopoly,” Journal of Political Economy, 48,

521-541.

Tenn, S. and J. Yun, 2009, “The Success of Divestitures in Merger Enforcement: Evidence

from the J&J - Pfizer Transaction,” FTC Working Paper No. 296.

U.S. Federal Trade Commission, 1999, “A Study of the Commission’s Divestiture Process,”

Prepared by the Staff of the Bureau of Competition.

27