Archives For agriculture

Allen Gibby is a Senior Fellow at the International Center for Law & Economics

Modern agriculture companies like Monsanto, DuPont, and Syngenta, develop cutting-edge seeds containing genetic traits that make them resistant to insecticides and herbicides. They also  develop crop protection chemicals to use throughout the life of the crop to further safeguard from pests, weeds and grasses, and disease. No single company has a monopoly on all the high-demand seeds and traits or crop protection products. Thus, in order for Company A to produce a variety of corn that is resistant to Company B’s herbicide, it may have to license a trait patented by Company B in order to even begin researching its product, and it may need further licenses (and other inputs) from Company B as its research progresses in unpredictable directions.

While the agriculture industry has a long history of successful cross-licensing arrangements between agricultural input providers, licensing talks can break down (and do so for any number of reasons), potentially thwarting a nascent product before research has even begun — or, possibly worse, well into its development. The cost of such a breakdown isn’t merely the loss of the intended product; it’s also the loss of the other products Company A could have been developing, as well as the costs of negotiation.

To eschew this outcome, as well as avoid other challenges such as waiting years for Company B to fully develop and make available a chemical before it engages in in arm’s length negotiations with Company A, one solution is for Company A and Company B to merge and combine their expertise to design novel seeds and traits and complementary crop protection products.

The potential for this type of integration seems evident in the proposed Dow-DuPont and Bayer-Monsanto deals where, of the companies merging, one earns most of its revenue from seeds and traits (DuPont and Monsanto) and the other from crop protection (Dow and Bayer).

Do the complementary aspects inherent in these deals increase the likelihood that the merged entities will gain the ability and the incentive to prevent entry, foreclose competitors, and thereby harm consumers?  

Diana Moss, who will surely have more to say on this in her post, believes the answer is yes. She recently voiced concerns during a Senate hearing that the Dow-DuPont and Bayer-Monsanto mergers would have negative conglomerate effects. According to Moss’s testimony, the mergers would create:

substantial vertical integration between traits, seeds, and chemicals. The resulting “platforms” will likely be engineered for the purpose of creating exclusive packages of traits, seeds and chemicals for farmers that do not “interoperate” with rival products. This will likely raise barriers for smaller innovators and increase the risk that they are foreclosed from access to technology and other resources to compete effectively.

Decades of antitrust policy and practice present a different perspective, however. While it’s true that the combined entities certainly might offer combined stacks of products to farmers, doing so would enable Dow-DuPont and Bayer-Monsanto to vigorously innovate and compete with each other, a combined ChemChina-Syngenta, and an increasing number of agriculture and biotechnology startups (per AgFunder, investments in such startups totaled $719 million in 2016, representing a 150% increase from 2015’s figure).

More importantly, the complaint assumes that the only, or predominant, effect of such integration would be to erect barriers to entry, rather than to improve product quality, offer expanded choices to consumers, and enhance competition.

Concerns about conglomerate effects making life harder for small businesses are not new. From 1965 to 1975, the United States experienced numerous conglomerate mergers. Among the theories of competitive harm advanced by the courts and antitrust authorities to address their envisioned negative effects was entrenchment. Under this theory, mergers could be blocked if they strengthened an incumbent firm through increased efficiencies not available to other firms, access to a broader line of products, or increased financial muscle to discourage entry.

While a nice theory, for over a decade the DoJ could not identify any conditions under which conglomerate effects would give the merged firm the ability and incentive to raise price and restrict output. The DoJ determined that the harms of foreclosure and barriers to smaller businesses were remote and easily outweighed by the potential benefits, which include

providing infusions of capital, improving management efficiency either through replacement of mediocre executives or reinforcement of good ones with superior financial control and management information systems, transfer of technical and marketing know-how and best practices across traditional industry lines; meshing of research and distribution; increasing ability to ride out economic fluctuations through diversification; and providing owners-managers a market for selling the enterprises they created, thus encouraging entrepreneurship and risk-taking.

Consequently, the DoJ concluded that it should rarely, if ever, interfere to mitigate conglomerate effects in the 1982 Merger Guidelines.

In the Dow-DuPont and Bayer-Monsanto deals, there are no overwhelming factors that would contradict the presumption that the conglomerate effects of improved product quality and expanded choices for farmers outweigh the potential harms.

To find such harms, the DoJ reasoned, would require satisfying a highly attenuated chain of causation that “invites competition authorities to speculate about what the future is likely to bring.” Such speculation — which includes but is not limited to: weighing whether rivals can match the merged firm’s costs, whether rivals will exit, whether firms will not re-enter the market in response to price increases above pre-merger levels, and whether what buyers gain through prices set below pre-merger levels is less than what they later lose through paying higher than pre-merger prices — does not inspire confidence that even the most clairvoyant regulator would properly make trade-offs that would ultimately benefit consumers.

Moss’s argument also presumes that the merger would compel farmers to purchase the potentially “exclusive packages of traits, seeds and chemicals… that do not ‘interoperate’ with rival products.” But while there aren’t a large number of “platform” competitors in agribusiness, there are still enough to provide viable alternatives to any “exclusive packages” and cross-licensed combinations of seeds, traits, and chemicals that Dow-DuPont and Bayer-Monsanto may attempt to sell.

First, even if a rival fails to offer an equally “good deal” or suffers a loss of sales or market share, it would be illogical, the DoJ concluded, to condemn mergers that promote benefits such as resource savings, more efficient production modes, and efficient bundling (i.e., bundling that benefits customers by offering them improved products, lower prices or lower transactions costs due to the purchase of a combined stack through a “one-stop shop”). As Robert Bork put it, far from “frightening smaller companies into semi-paralysis,” conglomerate mergers that generate greater efficiencies will force smaller competitors to compete more effectively, making consumers better off.

Second, it is highly unlikely these deals will adversely affect the long-standing prevalence of cross-licensing arrangements between agricultural input providers. Agriculture companies have a long history of supplying competitors with products while simultaneously competing with them. For decades, antitrust scholars have been skeptical of claims that firms have incentives to deal unreasonably with providers of complementary products, and the ag-biotech industry seems to bear this out. This is because discriminating anticompetitively against complements often devalues the firm’s own platform. For example, Apple’s App Store is more valuable to iPhone users because it includes messaging apps like WeChat, WhatsApp, and Facebook Messenger, even though they compete directly with iMessage and FaceTime. By excluding these apps, Apple would devalue the iPhone to hundreds of millions of its users who also use these apps.

In the case of the pending mergers, not only would a combined Dow-DuPont and Bayer-Monsanto offer their own combined stacks, their platforms increase in value by providing a broad suite of alternative cross-licensed product combinations. And, of course, the combined stack (independent of whether it’s entirely produced by a Dow-DuPont or Bayer-Monsanto) that offers sufficiently increased value to farmers over other packages or non-packaged alternatives, will — and should — win in the end.

The Dow-DuPont and Bayer-Monsanto mergers are an opportunity to remember why, decades ago, the DoJ concluded that it should rarely, if ever, interfere to mitigate conglomerate effects and an occasion to highlight the incentives that providers of complementary products have to deal reasonably with one another.

 

Truth on the Market is pleased to announce its next blog symposium:

Agricultural and Biotech Mergers: Implications for Antitrust Law and Economics in Innovative Industries

March 30 & 31, 2017

Earlier this week the European Commission cleared the merger of Dow and DuPont, subject to conditions including divestiture of DuPont’s “global R&D organisation.” As the Commission noted:

The Commission had concerns that the merger as notified would have reduced competition on price and choice in a number of markets for existing pesticides. Furthermore, the merger would have reduced innovation. Innovation, both to improve existing products and to develop new active ingredients, is a key element of competition between companies in the pest control industry, where only five players are globally active throughout the entire research & development (R&D) process.

In addition to the traditional focus on price effects, the merger’s presumed effect on innovation loomed large in the EC’s consideration of the Dow/DuPont merger — as it is sure to in its consideration of the other two pending mergers in the agricultural biotech and chemicals industries between Bayer and Monsanto and ChemChina and Syngenta. Innovation effects are sure to take center stage in the US reviews of the mergers, as well.

What is less clear is exactly how antitrust agencies evaluate — and how they should evaluate — mergers like these in rapidly evolving, high-tech industries.

These proposed mergers present a host of fascinating and important issues, many of which go to the core of modern merger enforcement — and antitrust law and economics more generally. Among other things, they raise issues of:

  • The incorporation of innovation effects in antitrust analysis;
  • The relationship between technological and organizational change;
  • The role of non-economic considerations in merger review;
  • The continued relevance (or irrelevance) of the Structure-Conduct-Performance paradigm;
  • Market definition in high-tech markets; and
  • The patent-antitrust interface

Beginning on March 30, Truth on the Market and the International Center for Law & Economics will host a blog symposium discussing how some of these issues apply to these mergers per se, as well as the state of antitrust law and economics in innovative-industry mergers more broadly.

As in the past (see examples of previous TOTM blog symposia here), we’ve lined up an outstanding and diverse group of scholars to discuss these issues:

  • Allen Gibby, Senior Fellow for Law & Economics, International Center for Law & Economics
  • Shubha Ghosh, Crandall Melvin Professor of Law and Director of the Technology Commercialization Law Program, Syracuse University College of Law
  • Ioannis Lianos,  Chair of Global Competition Law and Public Policy, Faculty of Laws, University College London
  • John E. Lopatka (tent.), A. Robert Noll Distinguished Professor of Law, Penn State Law
  • Geoffrey A. Manne, Executive Director, International Center for Law & Economics
  • Diana L. Moss, President, American Antitrust Institute
  • Nicolas Petit, Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, and Co-director, Liege Competition and Innovation Institute, University of Liege
  • Levi A. Russell, Assistant Professor, Agricultural & Applied Economics, University of Georgia
  • Joanna M. Shepherd, Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law
  • Michael Sykuta, Associate Professor, Agricultural and Applied Economics, and Director, Contracting Organizations Research Institute, University of Missouri

Initial contributions to the symposium will appear periodically on the 30th and 31st, and the discussion will continue with responsive posts (if any) next week. We hope to generate a lively discussion, and readers are invited to contribute their own thoughts in comments to the participants’ posts.

The symposium posts will be collected here.

We hope you’ll join us!

Recently, I discussed at this site the Supreme Court’s imposition of takings liability on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (“USDA”), because USDA fined a small raisin grower for refusing to cooperate with the California Raisins Marketing Order – which, stripped of the fancy verbiage, is little more than a government-supervised output limitation cartel.  The California raisin cartel is far from unique.  There are many other USDA cartels (and analogous regulatory schemes) out there, the bitter fruits of anti-consumer and corporatist New Deal economic policy.  On August 14, in Humane Society of the United States v. Thomas J. Vilsack, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, applying standing doctrine, took the knives to a less obviously anticompetitive, but no less pernicious, USDA agricultural order, the “Pork Order,” promulgated pursuant to the infelicitously named Pork Act (7 U.S.C. §§ 4801-19).

The case was filed in federal court by Harvey Dillenburg (a pork producer) and two organizations whose members include pork producers against the National Pork Board, claiming that it misappropriated millions of dollars from a fund for pork promotion into which all pork producers are required by law to contribute for the benefit of a trade association that is funded and controlled by large pork producers.  The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing, but that decision has now been reversed by the D.C. Circuit.  It is to be hoped that upon remand, the district court will take the next step and slaughter the Pork Order, thereby “bringing home the economic liberties bacon.”  Such an outcome would strike at the abuse of governmental processes by well-organized, powerful businesses, one of the worst aspects of crony capitalism.

The D.C. Circuit’s summary description of the case is instructive:

“The National Pork Board [Board] is a quasi-governmental entity responsible for administering a federal regulatory scheme known as the ‘Pork Order[,]’ [which implements] . . . the Pork Act, . . . the purpose of which is to promote pork in the marketplace. . . .  The Board strengthens, maintains, develops, and expands markets for pork and pork products through research and consumer information campaigns. In exchange for the Board’s efforts on behalf of their industry, pork producers pay the Board a special assessment on each hog they import or sell. . . . 

In 2006, the Board, with the approval of the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture, bought four trademarks associated with the slogan Pork:  The Other White Meat . . . from the National Pork Producers Council [Council], an industry trade group, for $60 million.  [Footnote deleted which explains that the USDA Secretary is charged by statute with reviewing the Pork Board’s actions, but that the reviewing court attributes those actions to the Board.]  The payment terms provide that the Board will pay the Council $3 million annually for twenty years. The Board can terminate the payments at any time with one year’s notice, in which case ownership of the phrase reverts back to the Council. Five years after buying the mark, the Board replaced it with a new motto, Pork:  Be Inspired. Now the Board keeps the initial slogan around as a “heritage brand” that it does not feature in its advertising.

The plaintiffs claim that the Board did not buy the slogan for its value as a marketing tool. They allege that the Board used the purchase of the slogan as a means to cut a sweetheart deal with the Council to keep the Council in business and support its lobbying efforts. They maintain that the Board overpaid for the slogan and that the Board’s shift to the Pork: Be Inspired campaign makes the initial slogan all but worthless.  According to the plaintiffs, the purchase of the mark and continued payment for it was and is arbitrary and capricious.  The plaintiffs also argue that the Board’s purchase of the slogan with the purpose of supporting the Council’s lobbying efforts violates the Pork Act and Order’s prohibitions against the Board spending funds to influence legislation.

The plaintiffs sued the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking an order enjoining the Board’s further payments to the Council and directing the Secretary to claw back what payments he can from the deal.  The district court dismissed the plaintiffs’ suit for lack of Article III standing. . . .  The court held that Dillenburg failed to establish an injury in fact fairly traceable to the Board’s actions that is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision. . . .  It also held that the two plaintiff organizations could not establish standing to sue in their own right or on behalf of their pork-producing members. . . .

[W]e reverse and remand [to the district court].  This case involves a concrete and particularized harm caused by an agency’s failure to confer a direct economic benefit on a statutory beneficiary. We also reject the government’s argument that the plaintiffs have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.  The statute’s provision for administrative review would not offer the plaintiffs adequate relief, and therefore they were not required to pursue it.”

This case is an example of rent-seeking in action, and, in particular, the abuse of regulatory processes to impose disproportionate costs on less-connected rivals (a phenomenon well-documented in public choice analysis of regulation), as further revealed in the D.C. Circuit’s opinion.  The Council, as a private trade organization, could not require all pork producers to join it and pay dues to support institutional advertising and other pork-related promotional activities.  The Council, however, achieved its goal indirectly by establishing and manipulating government regulation.  It successfully lobbied for passage of the Pork Act, proposed the text that ultimately served as foundation for the Pork Order, and used the Board to exercise regulatory authority over all pork producers.  Part of that exercise of regulatory authority involved the Board’s agreement to pay the Council $60 million for “The Other White Meat” mark.  This fee inevitably would be passed on to all pork industry members (including those that were not members of the Council), which are required by force of law to render payments to the Board.

The Board’s regulatory capture by the Council (the “big industry members’” lobby) is apparent, as further revealed in the Court’s opinion:

“Even though the Board paid for the mark’s development, the Council registered the mark in its own name and as its sole owner. . .  The Board and the Council were so enmeshed that, in 1986 when the Board voted to adopt the campaign [to promote the Other White Meat mark] and so committed itself to spend tens of millions of dollars in assessment funds over two decades on the promotion, it did not execute any licensing agreement or fee contract to formalize that arrangement. . . . [USDA’s] Office of Inspector General concluded in a 1999 audit that the Board ‘had relinquished too much authority to its primary contractor, the [Council], and ha[d] placed the [Council] in a position to exert undue influence over Board budgets and grant proposals.’  That history . . . raises a plausible inference that the Board’s purchase was not the product of arm’s length negotiation.

[Moreover], [b]efore the Board entered the . . . [subsequent formal] licensing agreement [for the Other White Meat mark], the Board’s own economist recommended that the Board pay no more than $375,000 annually to license the mark. . . .  [Furthermore], facts plausibly show[] that, whatever its value when the Board purchased it, the [Other White Meat] mark is no longer worth $3 million per year.”

A more compelling judicial account of the manipulation of government authority to achieve the aims of an organized private lobbying group (namely, using government to foist its promotional and licensing costs on the less-well-connected rivals of the lobbying organization’s members) is hard to imagine.

In conclusion, while the Pork Order in and of itself may have only limited economic impact, it is symptomatic of the more general problem of rent-seeking-induced special interest regulation (both federal and state) that, collectively, imposes enormous costs on the American economy.  It is also emblematic of the existence of countless federal government programs for which there is no principled justification in our republic, based on a federal Constitution that establishes limited enumerated powers and focuses on restricting government incursions into individual liberties.  It is to be hoped that the federal courts will keep this in mind and use their full panoply of constitutional tools in empowering private parties to fight cronyist governmental programs.