Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Lerner index

The Lerner index is an economic measure of a firm's market power, defined as the relative markup of price over marginal cost, $L = \frac{P - MC}{P}$, where $P$ denotes price and $MC$ marginal cost. Introduced by British economist Abba P. Lerner in his 1934 paper "The Concept of Monopoly and the Measurement of Monopoly Power," it quantifies the degree to which imperfect competition enables pricing above production costs, with $L = 0$ under perfect competition where $P = MC$, and higher values indicating greater monopoly power up to a theoretical maximum approaching 1. From the first-principles condition of —where —the derives as $L = -\frac{}{E_d}$, with $E_d$ the , implying that inversely correlates with demand responsiveness and requires $|E_d| > $ for positive profits. Widely applied in and antitrust analysis to assess competition empirically, the Lerner index facilitates evaluation of firm behavior across industries, though estimating $MC$ poses challenges in practice due to data limitations.

History and Origins

Development by Abba Lerner in 1934

Abba Ptachya Lerner, a Russian-born economist then studying at the , introduced the Lerner index in his seminal article "The Concept of Monopoly and the Measurement of Monopoly Power," published in the June 1934 issue of . In this work, Lerner defined monopoly power as the extent to which a firm could set price above marginal cost, proposing the ratio (P - MC)/P—where P is price and MC is marginal cost—as a direct quantitative indicator of that power, ranging from zero under perfect competition to unity under absolute monopoly. This formulation emphasized behavioral evidence of market power over structural proxies like firm size or market concentration, which Lerner critiqued as insufficient for capturing the actual exercise of monopoly influence. The index emerged amid interwar debates on , spurred by the recognition that real-world markets rarely conformed to classical models of or pure . Lerner's analysis built on Joan Robinson's The Economics of Imperfect Competition (1933), which had formalized curves for firms facing downward-sloping demand and highlighted pricing inefficiencies in oligopolistic settings. While Robinson focused on conditions under monopoly elements, Lerner sought a universal metric applicable across market forms, arguing that the price-cost markup inherently reflected the firm's control over output and price without presupposing specific industry structures. This approach addressed a gap in contemporary theory, where measures of competition often relied on shares rather than underlying profit-maximizing behavior. Lerner's innovation was particularly timely in the 1930s economic milieu, as theorists grappled with the implications of partial for and , influenced by the Great Depression's of rigidities. By linking to the elasticity of implicitly through the markup—without explicit derivation in the paper—he provided a for empirical that prioritized causal over static descriptors. The thus offered a theoretically grounded alternative to vague notions of "monopoly power," enabling analysis of deviations from competitive efficiency in diverse settings.

Evolution in Economic Theory

In the years following Lerner's 1934 formulation of the index as a measure of , it was rapidly incorporated into to delineate economic from its legal counterpart. , in a 1937 address, explicitly drew on the Lerner index to contrast the legal definition of —centered on a firm's ability to exclude rivals through patents or barriers—with the economic variant, which quantifies the divergence between price and marginal cost as evidence of pricing discretion. This adoption underscored the index's utility in shifting focus from structural barriers alone to observable pricing behavior, influencing early empirical studies of market in the late 1930s and 1940s. The Lerner index played a foundational role in the of the paradigm during the 1940s and 1950s, as developed by and Joe S. Bain at institutions like Harvard and the . In this , (e.g., concentration ratios) was hypothesized to shape firm conduct, ultimately determining performance metrics such as profitability; the index provided a theoretical for interpreting price-cost margins—empirical proxies for (P - MC)/P—as indicators of excess profits stemming from reduced competition. Empirical IO research under SCP increasingly regressed structural variables against markup data aligned with Lerner logic, enabling cross-industry analyses of how concentration correlated with market power, though often relying on accounting approximations due to data limitations on marginal costs. By the mid-20th century, the index had evolved from a theoretical construct for analysis into a practical for antitrust policy and enforcement. Antitrust scholarship began integrating it around the , approximately two decades after its , to assess welfare losses from in merger evaluations and dominance cases, bridging abstract IO models with legal applications like those under the and Clayton Acts. This transition facilitated quantitative guidelines for regulators, such as estimating deadweight losses via Lerner-derived markups, though implementation required adaptations for oligopolistic settings beyond simple .

Definition and Interpretation

Formal Mathematical Expression


The Lerner index L is defined as the L = \frac{P - MC}{P}, where P represents the charged by the firm and MC the of . This expression quantifies the proportional markup of over . The index assumes values between and : a value of occurs under , where P = MC, implying no ; a value approaching indicates substantial , as when MC approaches relative to P.
As a dimensionless , the Lerner index enables comparisons of across firms, products, or industries irrespective of the monetary units used for P and MC.
The index is conventionally computed at the firm-product level but can be aggregated for multi-product firms by constructing a composite measure, such as weighting by output shares, to assess overall .
Under profit maximization, firms possessing market power set price P above marginal cost MC due to facing downward-sloping demand curves, which necessitates restricting output below the competitive level to equate marginal revenue with marginal cost. This condition yields a positive Lerner index, quantifying the divergence from perfect competition where P = MC. The Lerner index L = (P - MC)/P interprets as the share of price attributable to the markup over , directly reflecting the firm's to elevate prices through output restriction rather than cost-based . In this , a value of L = 0 corresponds to competitive , while higher values indicate greater enabling sustained P > MC. Unlike accounting profit measures that rely on average or historical costs, the Lerner index employs economic marginal cost, encompassing opportunity costs and short-run production adjustments essential for accurate assessment of static profit conditions. This focus underscores its role in evaluating behavioral deviations from competition driven by strategic output choices.

Theoretical Derivation

From Monopoly Profit Maximization

In the standard static model of a single-product monopolist, profit is maximized by choosing output quantity Q to equate marginal revenue and marginal cost, derived from the objective \pi(Q) = P(Q)Q - C(Q), where P(Q) is the downward-sloping inverse demand function and C(Q) is the total cost function with positive marginal costs. The first-order condition for an interior maximum requires \frac{d\pi}{dQ} = 0, implying MR(Q) = MC(Q). Marginal revenue is obtained by differentiating total revenue R(Q) = P(Q)Q, yielding MR(Q) = P(Q) + Q \frac{dP(Q)}{dQ}. Substituting into the profit-maximization condition gives P(Q) + Q \frac{dP(Q)}{dQ} = MC(Q). Rearranging isolates the price-cost markup: P(Q) - MC(Q) = -Q \frac{dP(Q)}{dQ}. Normalizing by price produces the Lerner index L = \frac{P - MC}{P} = -\frac{Q}{P} \frac{dP}{dQ}, which quantifies the relative deviation of price from marginal cost at the optimum. This expression emerges directly from the monopoly first-order condition without invoking demand elasticity explicitly. The derivation assumes cost separability, such that marginal cost depends solely on output and not on pricing or rivals' actions, and excludes dynamic considerations or multi-product interactions, focusing on a pure monopoly with no strategic interdependence.

Connection to Demand Elasticity

The Lerner index exhibits an inverse relationship with the price elasticity of demand perceived by the firm, formalized as L = -\frac{1}{E_d}, where E_d < 0 denotes the firm's elasticity of demand. This inverse elasticity rule implies that greater responsiveness of quantity demanded to price changes—higher |E_d|—reduces the feasible markup over marginal cost, as firms face stronger competitive constraints from substitutes or buyer sensitivity./03:_Monopoly_and_Market_Power/3.05:_Monopoly_Power) For profit maximization to yield positive markups, |E_d| > 1, ensuring $0 < L < 1; inelastic demand (|E_d| < 1) would preclude profitability under standard assumptions. In non-monopolistic settings, such as with n symmetric firms and elasticity \epsilon_m, the perceived elasticity becomes E_d = n \epsilon_m, yielding L = \frac{1}{n |\epsilon_m|}. This adjustment reflects strategic interdependence, where each firm's output influences rivals' responses, effectively magnifying the elasticity faced relative to the . In differentiated products models, perceived elasticity incorporates cross-price effects, allowing L to vary with product substitutability; closer substitutes increase |E_d|, diminishing markups even amid concentration. These extensions underscore the index's in capturing through , of cost structures./03:_Monopoly_and_Market_Power/3.05:_Monopoly_Power)

Empirical Estimation

Methods for Calculating Marginal Costs

The marginal cost (MC) component of the Lerner index is typically estimated econometrically from firm-level data on total costs, output quantities, and input prices, enabling computation of L = \frac{P - MC}{P}. Parametric approaches predominate, with the translog cost function being a standard flexible form that approximates the underlying cost technology without imposing rigid functional assumptions beyond linear homogeneity in input prices and symmetry in cross-partial derivatives. To implement this, researchers estimate the translog model via maximum likelihood or generalized method of moments on panel data from firm financial statements, such as income statements for total operating costs and balance sheets for input expenditures (e.g., labor wages, capital depreciation, and materials), while controlling for output levels derived from revenue or production volumes. The MC is then derived as the partial derivative MC = \frac{\partial C}{\partial Q}, computed numerically from the estimated coefficients at observed output levels Q, ensuring the function satisfies theoretical restrictions like non-decreasing costs. Stochastic frontier analysis (SFA) extends translog specifications by incorporating a composed error term to separate inefficiency from statistical noise, yielding efficiency-adjusted MC estimates that avoid upward bias in cost frontiers from unobserved heterogeneity. This involves specifying a translog cost frontier and estimating via maximum likelihood on longitudinal firm data, often from industry panels or regulatory filings, with the inefficiency term following a half-normal or exponential distribution; MC follows from the frontier derivative, adjusted by the inefficiency multiplier e^{u_i} where u_i is the firm-specific inefficiency. Such methods demand large samples for convergence and robustness checks like specification tests for functional form, as misspecification can distort MC by conflating scale economies with inefficiency. Nonparametric alternatives, including data envelopment analysis (DEA), construct cost frontiers without parametric assumptions by solving linear programs that envelop observed input-output-cost bundles, deriving MC as the marginal rate of substitution or shadow price from the dual multiplier formulation. Applied post-2010 in empirical studies, DEA uses input-oriented or cost-minimization models on cross-sectional or panel firm data—sourcing inputs from financial disclosures (e.g., non-interest expenses as proxies for variable costs) and outputs from asset or loan volumes—to compute firm-specific efficient costs, with MC obtained via weighted sums of input slacks or directional derivatives along the frontier. These methods enhance rigor by revealing outliers and avoiding functional form bias but require careful handling of multiple outputs via aggregation indices and sensitivity to input price endogeneity through bootstrapping or order-m invariance adjustments. Empirical validation often cross-checks nonparametric MC against parametric benchmarks, prioritizing datasets with verifiable audit trails to mitigate measurement error in costs.

Adjustments for Multi-Product Firms

For multi-product firms, calculating the Lerner index at the product level requires detailed on product prices, quantities, and marginal costs, which are often unavailable or costly to obtain. Instead, empirical studies commonly rely on measures that combine outputs into a single proxy, such as divided by or in banking contexts. These Lerner indices, defined as L = \frac{R/Y - MC}{R/Y} where R is , Y is , and MC is the estimated marginal cost from a , provide a firm-level summary but introduce aggregation errors due to heterogeneous products and shared inputs. Such unadjusted aggregates fail to account for multi-product production structures, including inconsistent output measures (e.g., total assets omitting activities) and misspecified functions that violate input-output separability, leading to biased estimates of . Shaffer and Spierdijk (2020) demonstrate that these biases are economically significant, with distortions of 6–14% in U.S. bank data from 2011–2017, often resulting in overestimation of for diversified firms where product diversification lowers effective marginal costs through shared resources. In these cases, treating diverse outputs as homogeneous inflates the perceived markup by understating the benefits of joint . Adjustments mitigate these issues by incorporating weighted averages or refined cost specifications. One proposed corrected aggregate index is L^*_A = \frac{P^*_A - MC_A(y, w)}{P^*_A}, where P^*_A = \sum p_j y_j / \sum y_j uses output-share-weighted prices and a multi-output marginal cost MC_A derived from flexible cost functions allowing for and scope. Empirical applications in banking show that such corrections reduce bias, particularly for large, multi-product institutions, by better capturing how scope economies—joint cost savings from multiple outputs—lower marginal costs and thus deflate the index toward competitive levels. Failure to adjust can misattribute efficiency gains from diversification to excess .

Applications and Examples

Banking Sector Studies

Empirical applications of the Lerner index in banking have frequently focused on credit and deposit markets in transition economies. In the Czech Republic, a study using data from 15 major banks covering approximately 90% of the market estimated the Lerner index separately for credit and deposit segments from 2002 to 2006, finding values indicative of moderate market power rather than monopoly or perfect competition. Similarly, analyses of the Russian lending market, based on bank-level data from 2003 to 2008, computed mean Lerner indices around 0.25 to 0.35, reflecting limited but persistent pricing power amid high concentration and state influence in the sector. These levels suggest banks could mark up prices over marginal costs by 20-40%, though estimates vary with cost function specifications and do not imply inefficiency when controlling for operational scale. In the United States, post-2008 evaluations have linked Lerner index estimates to prior effects, such as interstate branching from 1994 to 2006, which influenced long-term . Nonparametric frontier methods applied to data from 2000 to 2016 yielded average Lerner indices of 0.15 to 0.25 for aggregate outputs, with higher values in less competitive regional markets, attributing elevated markups to scale economies rather than collusive power. Adjusted Lerner measures, incorporating risk and efficiency adjustments, revealed markups exceeding conventional estimates by up to 10 percentage points in deregulated environments, suggesting fostered "" inefficiencies in some banks but overall enhanced through expanded operations. Cross-country comparisons underscore that higher Lerner indices often correlate with banking concentration but coexist with benefits in systems. Advanced economies exhibited rising average Lerner values from 0.20 in the early to over 0.30 by 2019, driven by consolidation post-global , yet these were associated with improved cost control and stability in concentrated markets. In contrast, emerging markets with elevated concentration showed Lerner indices tied to operational , such as lower non-performing loans, challenging assumptions that high markups inherently signal welfare losses without accounting for gains. These findings highlight the index's in distinguishing from productive advantages, though cross-jurisdictional data comparability remains constrained by differing regulatory environments.

Other Industries and Recent Empirical Work

In the U.S. airline industry, empirical estimations of the Lerner index using data from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics have demonstrated that multimarket contact among carriers increases the index on overlapping routes, reflecting elevated pricing power from strategic interdependence, with average values ranging from 0.05 to 0.15 depending on route competition levels. Increased low-cost carrier entry and deregulation since the 1990s have contributed to a downward trend in aggregate Lerner indices, correlating with fare reductions and output expansions, as marginal costs derived from operational data show convergence toward competitive benchmarks. Telecommunications studies, particularly in long-distance and wireless segments, have applied the Lerner index to assess post-deregulation dynamics, with estimates for dominant firms like falling to around 0.07 by the early amid rising supply elasticities and infrastructure investments. In wireless markets, empirical reviews of merger effects indicate that capex-maximizing Lerner indices hover near 0.63 under oligopolistic conditions, but competition from spectrum auctions and technological upgrades has moderated these, fostering lower markups in data services by 2020. A 2022 nonparametric analysis of China's real estate sector estimated Lerner indices exceeding 0.20 in residential housing markets, higher than in commercial segments, attributing this to land supply restrictions and developer concentration, with marginal costs inferred from production frontiers revealing persistent markups despite policy interventions. In U.S. electricity markets, structural models applied to data from 1981–1998 yielded Lerner values declining from 0.10–0.15 in regulated eras to near zero post-deregulation in competitive regions, underscoring the index's sensitivity to entry barriers and wholesale trading. Post-2020 empirical work in digital-adjacent sectors, including platform-enabled services, has incorporated demand-side data to derive Lerner estimates challenging static assumptions, with multi-product adjustments showing indices below 0.10 for contestable online markets due to low switching costs and cycles. These findings highlight methodological advances like network-adjusted indices, which for externalities and reveal transient rather than persistent in evolving ecosystems.

Criticisms and Limitations

Challenges in Measurement and Data

Estimating the marginal cost component of the Lerner index presents significant challenges, particularly in isolating true marginal costs amid joint production costs in multi-product firms, where allocating shared across outputs requires arbitrary assumptions that introduce . Unobserved , such as intangible or firm-specific efficiencies, further complicate accurate , as their omission correlates with output and biases instrumental variable estimates downward. scarcity exacerbates these issues, with many empirical settings lacking granular total cost or input price necessary for reliable marginal cost derivation, often forcing reliance on aggregated industry-level datasets like KLEMS, which mask firm heterogeneity and amplify aggregation . Cost function specifications are highly sensitive to functional form choices, such as the commonly used translog form, which empirical tests frequently reject due to misspecification (e.g., Wald statistics exceeding 191 with p-values below $10^{-25}), resulting in systematically underestimated Lerner indices and wide confidence intervals around estimates. Failure to account for cost inefficiencies or off-balance-sheet activities in these models can bias results by 15-45%, as inefficiency adjustments elevate perceived markups, while alternative nonparametric approaches yield substantially higher values (e.g., 0.889 versus 0.269 in banking data from 2001). Mismeasurement from these sources distorts perceptions of , with empirical comparisons showing that parametric biases understate the index, potentially masking true power, while sampling errors produce negative estimates in up to 30% of cases, necessitating distributional corrections like models to interpret aggregates ( L ≈ 0.15, deviation 0.11). errors in input prices or productivity adjustments further propagate into Lerner estimates, amplifying variability and underscoring the need for robust, data-intensive methods to avoid over- or understating competitive distortions.

Static Model vs. Dynamic Efficiencies

The Lerner index quantifies via contemporaneous markups over marginal costs, embodying a static model that emphasizes by penalizing deviations from competitive without incorporating time-dependent processes like technological advancement. This assumes that positive values of the index inherently reflect losses from restricted output, yet it neglects how such markups can represent returns to investments in , where firms recoup sunk R&D costs through temporary exclusivity. In contrast, dynamic efficiencies arise from Schumpeterian , wherein market power—manifested as elevated Lerner indices—motivates firms to undertake high-risk that disrupt existing equilibria, yielding long-run gains in and that surpass static deadweight losses. Empirical examinations of the Schumpeterian reveal that in sectors with concentrated structures higher markups, rates often increase, as profits fund breakthroughs displacing obsolete technologies and enhancing overall economic output. For example, non-manufacturing industries exhibit negative correlations between competitive (inversely proxied by lower Lerner values) and , indicating that reduced preserves incentives for dynamic improvements over immediate . Technology firms exemplify this dynamic paradigm, where persistently high Lerner indices—approaching unity in software due to negligible marginal costs—have financed extensive R&D portfolios resulting in quality-adjusted consumer surpluses, such as algorithmic advancements and ecosystems that expand and functionality beyond what zero-markup scenarios could sustain. These cases the static that positive L denotes inefficiency, as causal link markup-enabled investments to iterative product evolutions and spillover effects, prioritizing sustained over perpetual . antitrust interpretations, often rooted in static models, undervaluing these dynamics by equating with harm absent evidence of foregone .

Policy Misapplications in Antitrust

The Lerner Index has been referenced in U.S. and analyses as a measure of during merger reviews, where elevated post-merger price-cost margins signal potential anticompetitive effects under profit-maximization assumptions. However, its application often overlooks firm-specific efficiencies, such as cost reductions from or , which can legitimately elevate markups without harming ; for instance, pharmaceutical firms exhibit high Lerner values due to R&D investments and protections that incentivize dynamic rather than static rents. Regulators' focus on isolated thresholds risks presuming harm from observed markups, ignoring causal that such disparities frequently arise from superior or temporary advantages eroded by entry, as seen in historical where initial high margins prompted but subsequent low-cost carrier innovations restored contestability without structural intervention. Critics argue that overreliance on the in enforcement distorts policy by favoring interventionist remedies that stifle efficiencies, particularly when natural barriers like network effects or —rather than collusion—underlie high values; in digital markets, for example, platforms like have sustained elevated Lerner's amid antitrust challenges, yet empirical assessments show welfare gains from rapid innovation outpacing any markup-induced losses, with market shares fluctuating due to Schumpeterian rather than persistent dominance. This misapplication is compounded by measurement challenges, as marginal cost estimates are prone to error in multi-product settings, leading to false positives in harm detection; DOJ and FTC cases invoking markup proxies have at times blocked mergers yielding net welfare benefits, as post-hoc studies reveal, underscoring a bias toward presumptive illegality over case-specific causal analysis. To mitigate these pitfalls, antitrust should Lerner assessments with holistic of impacts, including dynamic efficiencies and entry probabilities, rather than threshold-based presumptions that conflate markups with ; empirical work indicates that markets often self-correct high Lerner's through , as in post-1990s sectors where regulatory preserved incentives for entrants to incumbents, yielding lower long-term prices than might have achieved. Such an approach aligns enforcement with causal realism, prioritizing verifiable harm over structural heuristics prone to Type I errors.

Relation to Market Power Concepts

Comparison with Other Indices

The Lerner index, which quantifies a firm's markup of over as a proportion of , contrasts with structural concentration measures like the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). The HHI calculates by summing the squares of individual firm , providing an indicator of the potential for coordinated behavior based on alone. In , the Lerner index evaluates the actual of through observed relative to costs, capturing behavioral conduct rather than mere structural preconditions. This distinction implies complementarity: high HHI values signal risk but do not confirm exercise of power, as factors like entry barriers or demand conditions mediate outcomes, whereas the Lerner index directly reflects supracompetitive markups when positive. Profit-based metrics, such as return on assets (ROA) or return on equity (ROE), offer alternative gauges of market power by linking sustained supernormal returns to pricing ability, but they are susceptible to distortions from accounting conventions, leverage effects, and the inclusion of fixed costs or non-operating income. The Lerner index circumvents these issues by isolating the variable markup (P - MC)/P, deriving from profit-maximizing conditions where marginal revenue equals marginal cost, though it demands accurate marginal cost data often proxied via econometric estimation. Empirical trends, such as diverging patterns in advanced economies where Lerner values rose while profitability indicators stagnated, underscore how profit measures may understate power amid cost efficiencies or financial engineering. In differentiated product markets, the Lerner index excels by incorporating firm-specific elasticities and conduct, yielding markups that reflect perceived variety and patterns, as formalized in extensions where aggregate Lerner equals HHI scaled by market elasticity. Concentration indices like HHI falter here, as market shares inadequately proxy competitive when differentiation alters beyond numerical dominance. Cross-industry correlations reveal modest links between HHI and Lerner values in such settings, affirming the index's superior to conduct variations, as seen in multi-product sectors where structural metrics overlook output heterogeneity.

Empirical Evidence on Market Power Causality

Empirical investigations into the drivers of the Lerner index (L) emphasize efficiency-based explanations over collusion. In industries with high fixed costs, such as pharmaceuticals, elevated L values reflect the need to recoup innovation rents from substantial upfront R&D expenditures, where marginal costs are low relative to average costs, enabling temporary markups to sustain investment incentives. Studies comparing pharmaceutical firms to other high-tech sectors find that market power, proxied by L, positively correlates with R&D intensity, supporting the view that supra-competitive pricing compensates for risky innovation rather than stemming primarily from regulatory barriers or anticompetitive exclusion. This causal link is evident in patent-intensive subsectors, where L persistence aligns with successful drug pipelines rather than coordinated pricing. Cross-industry regressions spanning the late 1980s to 2010s reveal that L values, averaging around 0.15 across U.S. sectors, exhibit persistence tied to scale economies and firm productivity advantages, not collusion metrics like cartel detections. For instance, analyses of concentration trends show rising L correlating with asset utilization and returns on assets in industries with natural scale barriers, such as manufacturing and tech, where efficient incumbents expand output at lower unit costs, outcompeting rivals without explicit coordination. These patterns hold after controlling for demand elasticity, with scale-driven cost reductions explaining up to 75% of observed markup variations in concentrated sectors from 1997 to 2017. Causal inference from L to market power abuse is undermined by endogeneity biases, including reverse causation where cost efficiencies generate market share and markups, biasing structural models toward overstating anticompetitive effects. Empirical tests in banking and retail confirm that ignoring efficiency endogeneity inflates L estimates of market power by 20-30%, as unobserved productivity shocks drive both concentration and pricing deviations from marginal cost. Such biases challenge antitrust reliance on L thresholds, as dynamic efficiencies—rather than static collusion—often underlie sustained high values, per instrumental variable regressions correcting for simultaneity.

References

  1. [1]
    Do Banks Have Pricing Power? | St. Louis Fed
    Jun 27, 2019 · The Lerner Index—named after economist Abba Lerner—is one measure of pricing power. Lerner identified the degree of a firm's pricing power as ...
  2. [2]
    The Lerner Index of Monopoly Power: Origins and Uses
    The Lerner Index has become the standard measure of monopoly power and one of the most widely cited indexes in the discipline of economics.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  3. [3]
    The Lerner Index of Monopoly Power: Origins and Uses
    Jul 15, 2011 · The Lerner Index has become the standard measure of monopoly power and one of the most widely cited indexes in the discipline of economics.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  4. [4]
    [PDF] The Lerner Index of Monopoly Power: Origins and Uses
    The Lerner Index, (P-MC)/P, measures monopoly power as the difference between a firm's price and marginal cost, measuring market imperfection.Missing: interwar | Show results with:interwar
  5. [5]
    [PDF] Market Structure and Competition, Redux
    Structure-Conduct-Performance “paradigm,” which was intended to answer ... index, H, on accounting measures of markups (Lerner Index) and/or profits ...<|separator|>
  6. [6]
    Lerner Index of Monopoly Power and Elasticity - XPLAIND.com
    May 7, 2019 · Its value ranges from 0, in case of a perfect competition, to 1, in case of a pure monopoly. One of the most important difference between ...
  7. [7]
  8. [8]
    Measuring multi-product banks' market power using the Lerner index
    The aggregate Lerner index is a popular composite measure of multi-product banks' market power, based on total assets as the single aggregate output factor.
  9. [9]
    [PDF] the measurement of monopoly power - CORE
    The Lerner index assumes static profit maximization, so that the firm produces where marginal revenue equals marginal cost. In a competitive market price ...
  10. [10]
    Full article: The Lerner index and revenue maximization
    Nov 10, 2016 · Based on profit-maximizing behaviour, the usual interpretation of the Lerner index is that a zero value reflects competitive behaviour, ...
  11. [11]
    3.5: Monopoly Power - Social Sci LibreTexts
    Jan 4, 2021 · The Lerner Index is a positive number ( L ≥ 0 ) , increasing in the amount of market power. A perfectly competitive firm has a Lerner Index ...
  12. [12]
    19.2 Elasticity and Markup Pricing - EconGraphs
    Nov 8, 2024 · This ratio of markup to price is known as the Lerner Index, and has historically been used in antitrust cases as a measure of market power.
  13. [13]
    [PDF] Advanced Microeconomic Theory - Ana Espinola-Arredondo
    Profit Maximization: Lerner Index. • Rearranging yields. • This is the Lerner index of market power. – The price mark-up over marginal cost that a monopolist ...
  14. [14]
    [PDF] 3.5 Monopoly Power - New Prairie Press
    The Lerner Index is a positive number (L >= 0), increasing in the amount of market power. A perfectly competitive firm has a Lerner Index equal to zero (L ...
  15. [15]
    [PDF] Chapter 11 Monopoly
    The Lerner Index ranges from 0 to 1 for a profit- maximizing firm. • Competitive firms have a Lerner Index of 0. • The Lerner Index gets closer to 1 as a firm ...
  16. [16]
    [PDF] What determines the Lerner index? The proper interpretation of ...
    The inverse elasticity rule means that the Lerner index is equal to the inverse of the price elasticity of demand. The inverse elasticity rule also applies to ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] Intermediate Microeconomics — Week 10
    Feb 8, 2012 · This is known as the Lerner index, L. The Lerner index L measures the degree of market power. It is defined by. L = −. 1 ed. = 1. |ed| . Since ...
  18. [18]
    [PDF] Competition Index for Differentiated Products Oligopoly With an ...
    We can rearrange the above equation in terms of the Lerner's index to get: L ≡ p − m p. = −. ∂p(Q)Qqi. ∂p(Q)Q. = − si ε. = −. 1 nε. , where si ≡ qi. Q. = 1 n.
  19. [19]
    Lerner Index (Banks) - frds
    The Lerner Index is used to measure the market power of banks. It is defined as the markup of price over marginal cost, relative to the price.Missing: formula | Show results with:formula
  20. [20]
    [PDF] Using Empirical Marginal Cost to Measure Market Power in the US ...
    These estimates are interpreted as the Lerner Index in the middle year of the sample. Note that there are two levels of aggregates for manufacturing, so the ...
  21. [21]
    A new approach to jointly estimating the Lerner index and cost ...
    This paper proposes the copula-based simultaneous stochastic frontier model, composed of a cost frontier and two output price frontiers, for the banking sector
  22. [22]
    [PDF] A new way to estimate market power in banking
    Similar to the efficiency adjusted Lerner index, they also use the translog cost function to derive the Lerner index. The marginal cost in the Lerner index has ...
  23. [23]
    Estimating market power under a nonparametric analysis
    Oct 29, 2022 · ... Lerner index, which uses a modified nonparametric cost function. It is well-known that the DEA-based cost function not only suffers from the ...
  24. [24]
    [PDF] University of Dundee Bayesian DEA framework for market power ...
    Fukuyama and Tan (2022a) proposed a non-parametric data envelopment analysis (DEA) for the calculation of marginal cost and Lerner index. The proposed method ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  25. [25]
    [PDF] New Estimates of the Lerner Index of Market Power for U.S. Banks
    Abstract. The Lerner index is widely used to assess banks' market power. However, esti- mation and interpretation present several challenges, especially for ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  26. [26]
    [PDF] Measuring Multi-Product Banks' Market Power Using the Lerner Index
    The aggregate Lerner index is a popular composite measure of multi-product banks' market power, based on the assumption that banks' single aggregate output ...
  27. [27]
    Measuring banks' market power in the presence of economies of scale
    We show that the aggregate Lerner index only qualifies as a consistently aggregated Lerner index if three conditions hold.
  28. [28]
    [PDF] Market Power in the Czech Banking Sector
    We compute the Lerner index for the Czech banking sector and we also estimate the Lerner index separately for the Czech credit market as well as for deposit ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] Market Power in the Russian Banking Industry
    Apr 25, 2011 · The analysis of the mean Lerner index for the Russian banking industry is of utmost interest to investigate average bank behavior. However ...
  30. [30]
    Market power in the Russian banking industry - ScienceDirect.com
    This section provides the analysis of market power of Russian banks. We begin by providing information on the level and evolution of the Lerner index for ...
  31. [31]
    Enjoying the Quiet Life Under Deregulation? Evidence from ...
    Aug 6, 2025 · For a large sample of U.S. commercial banks, we find that adjusted Lerner indices are significantly larger than conventional Lerner indices and ...
  32. [32]
    When They Go Low, We Go High? Measuring Bank Market Power in ...
    May 27, 2021 · The Lerner index—a commonly used measure of competition in the banking sector—shows evidence of a marked increase in market power in advanced ...Introduction · II. The Lerner Index: Definition... · III. Empirical Analysis · Findings
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Bank competition and stability: Cross-country heterogeneity
    Jul 18, 2011 · While we show, on average, a positive relationship between banks' market power, as measured by the Lerner index, and banks' stability, as mea- ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  34. [34]
    Dynamic Effect of Low-Cost Entry on the Conduct Parameter
    The purpose of this research is to investigate the dynamic changes in the competition between air carriers by applying a revised conduct parameter method.
  35. [35]
    [PDF] measurements of market power - Federal Trade Commission
    price markup over marginal costs, its Lerner index, is equal to the absolute value of the inverse of the fIrm s own-price demand elasticity. Thus, the ...
  36. [36]
    [PDF] A Review of the Empirical Evidence on the Effects of Market ...
    Empirical research in wireless telecommunications industry competition is fractured ... The capex maximizing Lerner index is at 63 percent plus or minus 6.
  37. [37]
    Market structure in the US electricity industry: A long-term perspective
    Second, we use a structural model to estimate a Lerner Index for US electricity markets for part of our sample period, 1981–1998. The Lerner approach largely ...
  38. [38]
    Network Lerner Index: Demand and Distortions across Industries
    Dec 28, 2022 · Empirical analysis of Compustat firms from 1997 to 2019 confirms the theory predictions. Taking into account the sectoral heterogeneity explains ...Missing: telecommunications studies
  39. [39]
    [PDF] Measuring multi-product banks• market power using the Lerner index
    May 20, 2020 · All studies listed use the translog cost function to estimate the marginal-cost component of the Lerner index, apart from the ones marked with a ...
  40. [40]
    Estimation of cost eficiency without cost data - jstor
    Mar 30, 2018 · One of the difficulties for calculating the. Lerner index is that total cost data may not be available making the estimation of the marginal ...
  41. [41]
    Competition Effects and Industrial Productivity - MIT Press Direct
    Nov 1, 2017 · In contrast with the “static” efficiency of perfectly competitive markets, Schumpeter (1942) highlights the importance of the “dynamic” problem.
  42. [42]
    [PDF] Why Schumpeter was Right: Innovation, Market Power, and Creative ...
    This article highlights Schumpeterian market-power and creative-de- struction effects in a sample of early-twentieth-century U.S. industrial firms; his.
  43. [43]
  44. [44]
    [PDF] Product market competition, creative destruction and innovation - IFS
    Dec 2, 2021 · Abstract. We examine the economic analysis of the relationship between innovation and product market competition.
  45. [45]
    (PDF) Market concentration and innovation: New empirical evidence ...
    Jul 8, 2015 · This paper conducts a new empirical examination of the Schumpeterian hypothesis that more concentrated industries stimulate innovation. It is ...Missing: markups | Show results with:markups
  46. [46]
    [PDF] Three Economist's Tools for Antitrust and Merger Analysis
    According to the well known Lerner Index, a profit-maximizing firm sets price where the price-cost margin equals the negative reciprocal of the elasticity ...Missing: misapplications | Show results with:misapplications
  47. [47]
    [PDF] The Concentration-Margins Relationship Reconsidered
    In what I have called the market Lerner index, marginal cost is a weighted average of the marginal cost of each firm, where the weights are proportional to each ...
  48. [48]
    [PDF] understanding dynamic competition: new perspectives on potential ...
    Both big and small companies can drive this second type of competition, known as dynamic competition, in contrast with static competition, which is efficiency- ...
  49. [49]
    Comments of the International Center for Law and Economics on the ...
    Sep 18, 2023 · The results of ICLE's review indicate that a merger that involves products or firms that compete along a variety of dimensions, in addition to ...
  50. [50]
    An Explainer on How Market Concentration Is Measured - ProMarket
    Jun 24, 2024 · Will Macheel explains the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) as a common measure of market concentration, its implications for United States antitrust policy.
  51. [51]
    [PDF] A Review of the Monitoring of Market Power - mit ceepr
    An attempt to address this systems aspect of market power is the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI). ... Compared to the simple application of the Lerner Index to ...
  52. [52]
    The Proper Measure of Profits for Assessing Market Power
    Mar 21, 2023 · A common antitrust analysis of a good's markup is the calculation of the Lerner index. · Dennis W.
  53. [53]
    [PDF] 4. Methods of analyzing market power
    Lerner Index measures the intensity of competition very well in a market in the presence of a homogeneous products, but in cases of differentiated products ...
  54. [54]
    [PDF] Does Market Power Matter for R&D? A Semi-Parametric ...
    This study examines the relationship between market power and R&D investment by comparing the pharmaceutical industry with other high-tech sectors using a ...
  55. [55]
    Lerner index and patent counts by industry - ResearchGate
    This paper investigates the relationship between product market competition (PMC) and innovation. A growth model is developed in which competition may ...
  56. [56]
    Are US Industries Becoming More Concentrated?* | Review of Finance
    Trends in the aggregate Lerner index and the aggregate asset utilization: non-financial firms. Panel A depicts the aggregate Lerner Index and Panel B ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  57. [57]
    [PDF] Are US Industries Becoming More Concentrated? - NYU Stern
    Firms in industries with the largest increases in product market concentration have enjoyed higher profit margins, positive abnormal stock returns, and more ...
  58. [58]
    [PDF] On the Endogeneity of Retail Markups in an Equilibrium Analysis
    Ignoring this endogeneity results in upward bias in the Lerner Index estimates of retail market power. This finding would equivalently lead to a downward ...
  59. [59]
    On the implications of market power in banking - ScienceDirect.com
    The intuition is that both bank stability and efficiency may affect the degree of market power, resulting in an endogeneity bias in the traditional Lerner ...