Agricultural Supply Management and Market Power: Evidence from the U.S. Dairy and Potato Industries

Agribusiness ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 563-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliya V. Bolotova
Keyword(s):  
Market Power ◽  
Supply Management ◽  
The U.S ◽  
Agricultural Supply

Estimating bilateral market power of processors and retailers in the U.S. beef industry

Agribusiness ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 771-792 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chanjin Chung ◽  
Seongjin Park ◽  
Jungmin Lee
Keyword(s):  
Market Power ◽  
Beef Industry ◽  
The U.S

Market power among physicians in the U.S., 1983–1991

1998 ◽  
Vol 38 (4) ◽  
pp. 799-824 ◽  
Author(s):  
Barry J. Seldon ◽  
Chulho Jung ◽  
Roberto J. Cavazos
Keyword(s):  
Market Power ◽  
The U.S

scholarly journals Corporate Diversification

1994 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-178 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia A Montgomery
Keyword(s):  
Market Power ◽  
Empirical Research ◽  
Corporate Diversification ◽  
Excess Capacity ◽  
Diversified Firms ◽  
The U.S

This paper documents the significant presence of diversified firms in the U.S. economy and presents three views on why firms diversify. The market power view argues that firms diversify to wield conglomerate power across markets. The agency view argues that diversification is undertaken by managers pursuing their own interests at the expense of the firm's owners. The resource view argues that firms diversify in response to excess capacity in productive factors. A review of recent empirical research finds little support for the market-power view and a substantial amount of evidence that is consistent with the agency and resource views.

Testing for market power in the U.S. motor carrier industry

1995 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 559-576 ◽  
Author(s):  
William Nebesky ◽  
B. Starr McMullen ◽  
Man-Keung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Market Power ◽  
Motor Carrier ◽  
Motor Carrier Industry ◽  
The U.S

scholarly journals Demand-Driven Efforts to Stop Deforestation in Brazil's Soy Sector are Unlikely to be Offset by Cross-Border Leakage

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nelson Villoria ◽  
Rachael Garrett ◽  
Florian Gollnow ◽  
Kimberly Carlson
Keyword(s):  
Supply Chain ◽  
Policy Implementation ◽  
Supply Chains ◽  
Market Power ◽  
Great Promise ◽  
Forest Loss ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Soy Production ◽  
The U.S ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Supply chain policies that leverage the upstream market power of trading companies and importing countries offer great promise to address forest clearing1,2 in regions of rapid commodity expansion but weak forest governance3,4. Yet leakage—when deforestation is not eliminated but instead pushed to other regions—is a potentially major but unquantified factor that could dilute the global effectiveness of regionally successful supply chain policies5,6. We find substantial domestic leakage rates (43-50%) induced by zero deforestation policy implementation in Brazil’s soy sector, but insignificant cross-border leakage (<3%) due to the interdependence of soy production in the U.S. and Brazil. Currently implemented zero-deforestation policies in the Brazilian soy sector offset 0.9% of global and 4% of Brazilian deforestation from 2011-2016. However, completely eliminating deforestation from the supply chains of all firms exporting soy to the EU or China over the same period could have reduced global deforestation by 2% and Brazilian deforestation by 9%. If major tropical commodity importers adopt policies that require traders to eliminate deforestation from their supply chains, as currently proposed in the EU, it could help bend the curve on global forest loss.

Assessing market power in the U.S. pulp and paper industry

2019 ◽  
Vol 102 ◽  
pp. 138-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Kanieski Silva ◽  
Frederick W. Cubbage ◽  
Ronalds Gonzalez ◽  
Robert C. Abt
Keyword(s):  
Market Power ◽  
Paper Industry ◽  
Pulp And Paper Industry ◽  
Pulp And Paper ◽  
The U.S
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document