Archives For exemptions

On December 1, 2017, in granting certiorari in Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District v. SolarCity Corp., the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider “whether orders denying antitrust state-action immunity to public entities are immediately appealable under the collateral-order doctrine.”  At first blush, this case might appear to involve little more than a narrow technical question regarding the availability of interlocutory appeals.  But more fundamentally, this matter may afford the Supreme Court yet another opportunity to weigh in on the essential nature of the antitrust state action doctrine (albeit indirectly), in deciding whether the existence of state action immunity should be decided prior to the litigation of substantive antitrust suits.


The Salt River Power District (SRP) is the only supplier of traditional electrical power in Phoenix, and is a subdivision of the State of Arizona.  SRP has lobbied successfully for special governmental status and has used its longstanding ties to government to advance the interests of its private shareholders.  (This sort of tale comes as no surprise to students of public choice.)  Counsel for respondent SolarCity discussed these ties in their brief opposing certiorari:

[SRP] was created in 1903 to take advantage of a federal law that provided interest-free loans for landowners to build reclamation projects to irrigate their lands.  During the Great Depression, SRP successfully lobbied the Arizona legislature for a law denominating it a political subdivision of Arizona so the landowners who ran SRP could avoid income taxes and sell tax-free bonds. . . .  Arizona denominates SRP a public entity, but as th[e] [U.S. Supreme] Court . . . explained [in a 1981 case involving [the right of local non-landowner residents to vote on SRP policy determinations], SRP and organizations like it are “essentially business enterprises, created by and chiefly benefitting a specific group of landowners.” . . . .  Among other things, SRP lacks “the crucial powers of sovereignty typical of a general purpose unit of government” and SRP’s electric business does not implicate any traditional sovereign power. . . . 

SRP’s retail electric business is unregulated. The business answers only to its own self-interested Board, not a public utility commission or any similar independent body. . . .   42 (ER55). SRP is thus free to serve private, not public interests. . . .  SRP takes profits from electricity sales and uses them to subsidize irrigation and canal water so that, for example, certain agricultural interests can farm cheaply by a city in the desert. . . . 

 In short, [as the Supreme Court explained in 1981,] SRP makes money from electric customers and pays out dividends in the form of irrigating “private lands for personal profit.”


SolarCity sells and leases rooftop solar-energy panels in Arizona.  It alleges that SRP used its special government subsidies to drive it out of the market for the supply of those panels to customers in the SRP district area.  Specifically, according to counsel for SolarCity:

As solar generation increased in popularity and efficiency, SRP started to view solar as a long-term competitive threat to its electricity sales and profits. . . .  Facing competition for the first time ever, SRP had a choice between competing in the market or using its monopoly power to exclude competition. . . .  SRP first attempted to compete on the merits by developing its own solar offerings. . . .  However, consumers continued to prefer SRP’s solar competitors. . . .  Then, rather than offer consumers a better product or value, SRP used its unregulated market power to impose terms that lock customers into remaining what SRP calls “requirements” customers—those who satisfy all their electric needs from, and deal exclusively with, SRP. . . .

SRP’s plan [which imposed a large penalty on any customer who obtained power from its own solar system] worked. . . .  The new requirements it mandated for its customers had a drastic anticompetitive effect. . . .  New rooftop solar applications—from customers of any firm, not just SolarCity—dropped by about 96 percent. . . .  SolarCity was forced to stop selling in SRP territory and to relocate employees.

SolarCity sued SRP for Sherman Antitrust Act violations in Arizona federal district court.  SRP moved to dismiss under the antitrust state action doctrine, which (as Professor Herbert Hovenkamp puts it) “exempts qualifying state and local government regulation from federal antitrust [law], even if the regulation at issue compels an otherwise clear violation of the law.”  The district court denied the motion to dismiss, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.  The Ninth Circuit panel opinion (Judge Michelle Friedland, joined by Judges Alex Kozinski and Ronald Lee Gilman) assessed the applicability of the “collateral order doctrine,” which allows an appeal of a non-final district court decision if it is:  (1) conclusive; (2) addresses a question separate from the merits of the underlying case; and (3) raises “some particular value of a high order” that will evade effective review if not considered immediately.  The Ninth Circuit emphasized the Supreme Court’s teaching that the collateral order doctrine is a “narrow exception” that must be “strictly applied.”  It concluded that, “because the state-action doctrine is a defense to liability and not an immunity from suit, the collateral-order doctrine does not give us jurisdiction here [footnotes omitted].”

In its brief supporting its writ of certiorari, SRP stressed that an interlocutory appeal was justified here because“[a] denial of state-action immunity, like a denial of state sovereign immunity, offends state sovereignty, dignity, and autonomy. . . .  [T]he decision below threatens the dignity and autonomy of the states, as well as the division of regulatory power between the state and federal governments, by allowing a political subdivision of a state to be subjected to prolonged litigation for engaging in conduct that was clearly authorized by the state.”

In short, the Supreme Court has been asked to take fundamental federalism principles into account in weighing the applicability of the collateral order doctrine.


Set aside for the moment the narrow question of the applicability of specific collateral order doctrine criteria in this case.   Assuming the validity of the facts summarized above, this matter highlights the always-present anticompetitive potential of enabling private parties to exercise monopoly power under the mantle of state authority.  Let us briefly examine, then, key state action principles that apply to essentially private conduct that seeks to shelter under a governmental cloak.

Commendably, in Midcal and 324 Liquor, the Supreme Court made it clear that the state action doctrine does not enable state governments to directly authorize purely private actors to violate the Sherman Act, free from state oversight.  But should an entity such as SRP that is in essence an unregulated for-profit private enterprise, acting in an anticompetitive fashion, be free to undermine the competitive process (benefiting from government subsidies to boot) merely because a century-old state law characterized it as a state political subdivision?

The “spirit” of recent Supreme Court jurisprudence suggests that the answer should be no, and that the Court may be willing to look beyond the formality of a legislative designation (in this case, “state political subdivision”) to questions of political accountability.  In 2015, In North Carolina Dental Board, the Court rejected the claim that state action immunity applied to the self-interested actions of a state dental regulatory board stacked with dentists (the board barred competition from non-dentists in tooth whitening).  In so doing, the Court held that entities designated as state agencies are not exempt from active supervision when they are controlled by market participants, because immunizing such entities from federal antitrust challenge would pose the risk of self-dealing that the Court had warned against in prior decisions, such as Midcal.

A legal formalist might respond that a mere state board is of a lesser dignity than a state political subdivision, such as SRP, which directly exercises state sovereign power, and, as such, is not subject to “active supervision” requirements.  Functionally, however, SRP acts in all respects like a private company, except that it benefits from certain special state subsidies that assist it in undermining competition.  Recognizing that reality, the Court might be willing to say that it will look beyond formal legislative designations to the actual role of a state entity in deciding whether it is, or is not, engaging in “sovereign action.”  (State instrumentalities engaging in classic sovereign functions, such as a state supreme court or state treasury department, would not raise this sort of problem.)

More specifically, the Court might wish to consider whether federal antitrust law should be applicable when a state instrumentality that does not have the attributes of a classic private business – such as a state owned-controlled- and operated electric company, for example – engages in business activity and uses its governmental ties to subvert competition.  Such a company might, for instance, predate against competing private companies by pricing below its own cost to drive out and keep out rivals, relying on taxpayer funding to support its activities.  Activity of this sort could be made subject to a “market participant exception” to the state action doctrine (at the very least requiring state active supervision), as recommended by the Federal Trade Commission’s 2004 State Action Task Force Report.  Such an exception, which has not yet been specifically addressed by the Supreme Court, would reduce the returns to anticompetitive business activity engaged in by privileged “state” agents, thereby promoting commercial freedom and vibrant markets.  And, as two learned commentators recently pointed out, it would not offend federalism principles that underlie the antitrust state action doctrine (footnote references deleted):

[T]he state does not act within its sovereign prerogative when engaged in economic conduct.  It cannot be that the government is truly exercising sovereign powers when acting in the same way as its private citizens.  Thus, restricting the prerogative of state and local governments to engage in economic conduct does not abrogate sovereign immunity.  Therefore, the federalism concerns underpinning the . . . [state action] immunity doctrine are not in play when the State acts as an ordinary market-participant on equal-footing with private citizens.

The policy and federalism justifications for denying state action immunity to an unsupervised state agency acting as a commercial operator would apply “in spades” to SRP, which, as has been seen, in all material respects looks like a purely private actor.

Let’s return now to the specific question before the Supreme Court.  While state action doctrinal issues (including, of course, a possible market operator exception) are not directly presented in the SRP v. SolarCity case, they may well flavor the approach the Court takes in determining the availability of interlocutory appeals of state action immunity denials.  The clear and ringing invocation of federalism principles in petitioners’ brief for certiorari suggests a possible doctrinal hook.  In particular, the Court might determine that respect for the dignity and role of states as coordinate sovereigns compels a finding that denials of antitrust state action immunity should be subject to immediate review.

A ruling that state action questions should be decided “up front” might, however, prove a pyrrhic victory for petitioners.  Counsel for respondents have ably pointed out the quintessentially private commercial nature of SRP’s activities, which could amply support a judicial finding of no state action immunity – whether based on the somewhat novel “market participant” exception or because of inadequate state supervision.


The Supreme Court’s decision in SPR v. SolarCity will determine the narrow issue of the availability of interlocutory appeals to an antitrust defendant that is denied a dismissal on antitrust state action grounds.  A holding that authorizes such appeals also would have the incidental salutary effect of furthering efficiency, by eliminating a significant source of costly uncertainty affecting the litigation of cases that fall under the shadow of the “state action” umbrella.

More broadly, the facts in SPR v. SolarCity highlight a potential future clarification of the antitrust state action doctrine – establishment of a clear “market participant” exception to state action immunity.  Such an exception commendably would promote effective market processes without offending federalism.  It would also tend to diminish returns to (and thereby weaken incentives to engage in) rent seeking by those firms that seek to obtain a business advantage through special government privilege, rather than through competition on the merits.

In its February 25 North Carolina Dental v. Federal Trade Commission decision, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a state regulatory board that is controlled by market participants in the industry being regulated cannot invoke “state action” antitrust immunity unless it is “actively supervised” by the state. Will this decision discourage harmful protectionist regulation, such as the prohibition on tooth whitening by non-dentists at issue in this case? Will it also interfere with the ability of states to shape their regulatory programs as they see fit? U.S. Federal Trade Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen will address this important set of questions in a March 31 luncheon presentation at the Heritage Foundation, with Clark Neily of the Institute for Justice and Misha Tseytlin of the West Virginia State Attorney General’s Office providing expert commentary. (You may view this event online or register to attend it in person here).

Just in time for this event, the Heritage Foundation has released a legal memorandum on “North Carolina Dental Board and the Reform of State-Sponsored Protectionism.”  The  memorandum explains that North Carolina Dental “has far-reaching ramifications for the reform of ill-conceived protectionist state regulations that limit entry into myriad professions and thereby harm consumers. In holding that a state regulatory board controlled by market participants in the industry being regulated cannot cloak its anticompetitive rules in ‘state action’ antitrust immunity unless it is ‘actively supervised’ by the state, the Court struck a significant blow against protectionist rent-seeking legislation and for economic liberty. The states may re-examine their licensing statutes in light of the Court’s decision, but if they decline to revise their regulatory schemes to eliminate their unjustifiable exclusionary effect, there may well be yet another round of challenges to those programs—this time based on the federal Constitution.”

U.S. antitrust law focuses primarily on private anticompetitive restraints, leaving the most serious impediments to a vibrant competitive process – government-initiated restraints – relatively free to flourish.  Thus the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) should be commended for its July 16 congressional testimony that spotlights a fast-growing and particularly pernicious species of (largely state) government restriction on competition – occupational licensing requirements.  Today such disciplines (to name just a few) as cat groomers, flower arrangers, music therapists, tree trimmers, frozen dessert retailers, eyebrow threaders, massage therapists (human and equine), and “shampoo specialists,” in addition to the traditional categories of doctors, lawyers, and accountants, are subject to professional licensure.  Indeed, since the 1950s, the coverage of such rules has risen dramatically, as the percentage of Americans requiring government authorization to do their jobs has risen from less than five percent to roughly 30 percent.

Even though some degree of licensing responds to legitimate health and safety concerns (i.e., no fly-by-night heart surgeons), much occupational regulation creates unnecessary barriers to entry into a host of jobs.  Excessive licensing confers unwarranted benefits on fortunate incumbents, while effectively barring large numbers of capable individuals from the workforce.  (For example, many individuals skilled in natural hair braiding simply cannot afford the 2,100 hours required to obtain a license in Iowa, Nebraska, and South Dakota.)  It also imposes additional economic harms, as the FTC’s testimony explains:  “[Occupational licensure] regulations may lead to higher prices, lower quality services and products, and less convenience for consumers.  In the long term, they can cause lasting damage to competition and the competitive process by rendering markets less responsive to consumer demand and by dampening incentives for innovation in products, services, and business models.”  Licensing requirements are often enacted in tandem with other occupational regulations that unjustifiably limit the scope of beneficial services particular professionals can supply – for instance, a ban on tooth cleaning by dental hygienists not acting under a dentist’s supervision that boosts dentists’ income but denies treatment to poor children who have no access to dentists.

What legal and policy tools are available to chip away at these pernicious and costly laws and regulations, which largely are the fruit of successful special interest lobbying?  The FTC’s competition advocacy program, which responds to requests from legislators and regulators to assess the economic merits of proposed laws and regulations, has focused on unwarranted regulatory restrictions in such licensed professions as real estate brokers, electricians, accountants, lawyers, dentists, dental hygienists, nurses, eye doctors, opticians, and veterinarians.  Retrospective reviews of FTC advocacy efforts suggest it may have helped achieve some notable reforms (for example, 74% of requestors, regulators, and bill sponsors surveyed responded that FTC advocacy initiatives influenced outcomes).  Nevertheless, advocacy’s reach and effectiveness inherently are limited by FTC resource constraints, by the need to obtain “invitations” to submit comments, and by the incentive and ability of licensing scheme beneficiaries to oppose regulatory and legislative reforms.

Former FTC Chairman Kovacic and James Cooper (currently at George Mason University’s Law and Economics Center) have suggested that federal and state antitrust experts could be authorized to have ex ante input into regulatory policy making.  As the authors recognize, however, several factors sharply limit the effectiveness of such an initiative.  In particular, “the political feasibility of this approach at the legislative level is slight”, federal mandates requiring ex ante reviews would raise serious federalism concerns, and resource constraints would loom large.

Antitrust law challenges to anticompetitive licensing schemes likewise offer little solace.  They are limited by the antitrust “state action” doctrine, which shields conduct undertaken pursuant to “clearly articulated” state legislative language that displaces competition – a category that generally will cover anticompetitive licensing requirements.  Even a Supreme Court decision next term (in North Carolina Dental v. FTC) that state regulatory boards dominated by self-interested market participants must be actively supervised to enjoy state action immunity would have relatively little bite.  It would not limit states from issuing simple statutory commands that create unwarranted occupational barriers, nor would it prevent states from implementing “adequate” supervisory schemes that are designed to approve anticompetitive state board rules.

What then is to be done?

Constitutional challenges to unjustifiable licensing strictures may offer the best long-term solution to curbing this regulatory epidemic.  As Clark Neily points out in Terms of Engagement, there is a venerable constitutional tradition of protecting the liberty interest to earn a living, reflected in well-reasoned late 19th and early 20th century “Lochner-era” Supreme Court opinions.  Even if Lochner is not rehabilitated, however, there are a few recent jurisprudential “straws in the wind” that support efforts to rein in “irrational” occupational licensure barriers.  Perhaps acting under divine inspiration, the Fifth Circuit in St. Joseph Abbey (2013) ruled that Louisiana statutes that required all casket manufacturers to be licensed funeral directors – laws that prevented monks from earning a living by making simple wooden caskets – served no other purpose than to protect the funeral industry, and, as such, violated the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.  In particular, the Fifth Circuit held that protectionism, standing alone, is not a legitimate state interest sufficient to establish a “rational basis” for a state statute, and that absent other legitimate state interests, the law must fall.  Since the Sixth and Ninth Circuits also have held that intrastate protectionism standing alone is not a legitimate purpose for rational basis review, but the Tenth Circuit has held to the contrary, the time may soon be ripe for the Supreme Court to review this issue and, hopefully, delegitimize pure economic protectionism.  Such a development would place added pressure on defenders of protectionist occupational licensing schemes.  Other possible avenues for constitutional challenges to protectionist licensing regimes (perhaps, for example, under the Dormant Commerce Clause) also merit being explored, of course.  The Institute of Justice already is performing yeoman’s work in litigating numerous cases involving unjustified licensing and other encroachments on economic liberty; perhaps their example can prove an inspiration for pro bono efforts by others.

Eliminating anticompetitive occupational licensing rules – and, more generally, vindicating economic liberties that too long have been neglected – is obviously a long-term project, and far-reaching reform will not happen in the near term.  Nevertheless, while we the currently living may in the long run be dead (pace Keynes), our posterity will be alive, and we owe it to them to pursue the vindication of economic liberties under the Constitution.

The National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (NCAA’s) longstanding cartel-like arrangements once again are facing serious legal scrutiny.  On June 9 a federal antitrust trial opened in Oakland featuring college athletes’ attempt to enjoin the NCAA from exploiting the athletes’ names, images, and likenesses (“rights of publicity”) for profitRights of publicity are a well-recognized form of intellectual property.  Although the factual details concerning the means by which NCAA institutions may have extracted those rights (for example, from signed waivers that may have been required as a condition for receipt of athletic scholarships) remain to be developed, a concerted NCAA effort to exploit the athletes’ IP, if proven, would be highly anticompetitive.  Consistent with the TOTM tradition of highlighting challenges to NCAA competitive arrangements, let’s look at what’s at stake.

The NCAA is involved in major sports-related revenue-producing projects with its corporate partners, such as Electronic Arts (EA), a $4 billion company that produces video games.  The money is big – EA’s NCAA Football game alone is reported to bring in over $200 million a year in gross revenues.  Although the NCAA has denied using player likenesses in video games, the creators of the NCAA Football series have indicated that actual athletes’ jersey numbers and attributes are used, a fact apparently known to NCAA executives.  Moreover, recent separate $20 million and $40 million settlements agreed to by the NCAA and EA in suits brought by college athletes provide additional indications that the NCAA may be aware that it has exploited college players’ rights of publicity.

So what is the antitrust angle?  In dealing with student athletes, the NCAA, which represents the interests of its member colleges, acts like a monopsony cartel, as Judge Posner has noted, and as Blair and Harrison have explained in detail.  Anticompetitive monopsony buyer agreements have long been struck down by the courts as Sherman Act violations, as in Mandeville Farms and in National Macaroni Manufacturers v. FTC, and occasionally have been the subject of criminal prosecution.

This does not necessarily mean, however, that all restrictions the NCAA places on student athletes run afoul of the antitrust laws.  As the Supreme Court made clear in the 1984 NCAA case, the federal antitrust laws apply to the NCAA, but competitive restraints may pass muster if they are justifiable means of fostering competition among amateur athletic teams, such as uniform rules defining the conditions of a sports contest, the eligibility of participants, or the sharing of responsibilities and benefits integral to the NCAA’s joint venture.

Like the anticompetitive restrictions on member colleges’ separate television contracts struck down by the Supreme Court in NCAA, however, the NCAA’s profiting from student athletes’ rights of publicity is not vital to the preservation of balanced collegiate amateur competition.   Likewise, it is not needed to avoid the payment of student salaries that some might argue smacks of disfavored “professionalism” (although others would argue it promotes healthy competition and avoids exploitation of athletes).  In contrast, a policy of vindicating athletes’ right of publicity enables them to capture the value of the intellectual property generated by their accomplishments, and thus incentivizes outstanding athletic achievements, consistent with the legitimate ends of NCAA competitions.  Proof of a concerted effort by the NCAA to deny this benefit to student athletes and instead to share the IP-generated proceeds only with member institutions would, if shown, appear to lack any cognizable efficiency justification, and thus be ripe for antitrust condemnation.

Whatever the outcome of the current rights of publicity litigation, the NCAA may expect to face antitrust scrutiny on a number of fronts.  This is as it should be.  While the organization clearly yields efficiencies that benefit consumers (such as establishing and overseeing rules and standards for many collegiate sports), its inherent temptation to act as a classic cartel for the financial benefit of its members will not disappear.  Indeed, its incentive to seek monopoly profits may rise, as the money generated by organized athletics and related entertainment offshoots continues to grow.  Accordingly, antitrust enforcers should remain vigilant, and efforts to obtain NCAA-specific statutory antitrust exemptions, even if well-meaning, should be resisted.

I testified Thursday on H.R. 1946, the “Preserving our Local Hometown Independent Pharmacies Act of 2011,” in front of the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet.  The Act, as implied by the title, would establish an antitrust exemption for smaller pharmacies.  The hearing lineup is available here.  My written testimony is available here.  The basic case against antitrust exemptions to allow price-fixing is pretty clear as a matter of economics — e.g. the Antitrust Modernization Commission strongly opposes such exemptions on both public choice and consumer welfare grounds.  As I discuss in my testimony, that case is made stronger in the health care context.

For more on the case against antitrust exemptions, see here, here, and here.

Todd Zywicki and I recently filed (along with Keith Hylton, Fred McChesney, and TOTM’s own Thom Lambert) an amicus brief in support of certiorari in a Fifth Circuit Tobacco Master Settlement Case.  We argue that the state action exception to the antitrust laws, i.e. Parker immunity, should not be extended to cover a multistate government-created cartel such as this one.  The net impact of the MSA, with the help of the state AG’s, is to entrench a tobacco cartel and harm consumers.  As Todd points out in his post at the VC, Alan Morrison, Richard Epstein, and Kathleen Sullivan filed another brief in the same case challenging the multistate agreement under the Compact Clause of the Constitution.   We argue that the underlying logic of Parker v. Brown is that of competitive federalism and rejects the extension of immunity for a massive interstate cartel.

While I’m focused on health care and antitrust, the question above is the subject of a conference at the Harvard Law School Petrie‐Flom Center which looks like it has a great lineup.  The conference is November 12th.  Here is the conference description (HT: Larry Solum).

Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics at Harvard Law School will be hosting a one-day meeting on Friday, November 12, 2010 on the subject of whether Congress should repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act. There are a limited number of spaces available for specialists in the field who would like to attend. Requests for attendance will be accepted on the basis of availability. If you would like to attend or have any questions, please email Please note that unfortunately, funding for travel to Cambridge is not available and must be provided by attendee’s home institution.

Conference Description
In 1944, the U.S. Supreme Court, in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Association, held that the Commerce Clause authorized the federal government to regulate insurance companies. The next year, in direct response, Congress passed the McCarran-Ferguson Act, effectively shielding the business of insurance from federal antitrust regulation, except the regulation of boycott, coercion and intimidation, so long as state law regulates anticompetitive conduct. Shortly thereafter, a debate arose as to whether the federal antitrust law exemption should be repealed. With the recent flurry of federal reform of health care insurance markets, the current debate has centered on whether Congress should repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act’s antitrust exemption for health care insurers. The one-day conference will bring together regulators, industry actors and academics working in the fields of business, law and economics to discuss the pros and cons of repealing the McCarran-Ferguson Act’s federal antitrust exemption for health care insurers. For information on presenters and paper topics see here>>

Here is the agenda.


Economist and occasional TOTM guest blogger Steve Salop (Georgetown) recently sent me the following questions spurred by the local debate over Governor McConnell’s proposal to private the retailing of alcoholic beverages:

I have my first antitrust class of the semester tomorrow.  Among the issues I teach the first week are (1) the fact that demand curves slope down; (2) restrictions on competition tend to reduce output and consumer welfare; (3) state regulation is often used to restrict output.  While procrastinating from class preparation today, I read a Washington Post article about the controversy in Virginia over whether to privatize liquor stores.  The article quotes an epidemiologist who sounds like a closet economist: “If you make it easier to drink, people will drink more. … It’s as simple and basic as that.  This seemed like a great example to use for my class.  (Of course, it’s a little more complicated.  The epidemiologist also said, “And if people drink more, we have more alcohol-related problems.”  And, then he gave his statement, “it’s as simple and basic as that.” )  Okay, there are externalities, even in Virginia.  But, here is where I got confused.  The article refers to a study by George Mason economist Don Boudreaux who apparently did a study (available here) that showed that state privatization did not lead to more alcohol-related problems, at least not more alcohol-related deaths.

So, I have two questions: What should I tell my students about the basics of demand theory?, and the overarching benefits of antitrust over regulation?  Or, is this just one of those “politics trumps economics” arguments: the demand for limited government outweighs the law of downward-sloping demand.

Here a few thoughts.

First, its good to know that Steve and I teach the same things on the first day of antitrust class.  Things are apparently not too different, at least when it comes to antitrust class, on the other side of the Potomac.

Second, to frame the issues for readers, state-imposed restrictions on competition take many forms and are a common problem faced by antitrust authorities, they often involve “boards” appointed by the state granted authority to regulate particular industries, including the imposition of barriers to entry (recall Eric Helland’s post on the monks fighting against restrictions imposed by the Louisiana funeral industry board — indeed, I remember fondly my time at the Federal Trade Commission with the “Dirty Boards” team whose task was to identify these boards).  The economic welfare analysis for many of these restrictions in straightforward.  The restriction on competition reduces output, raises price, and reduces consumer welfare.  What makes the state restrictions on alcoholic beverages more interesting from an economic perspective is that there is at least a plausible claim to be made that reducing output will also reduce the external social costs associated with alcohol consumption, producing benefits that could potentially offset the negative consumer welfare effects.  The relative magnitudes of these effects is an empirical question.

Third, as Steve’s question observes, the obvious effect of privatization, lifting the competitive restriction, will be to increase output and reduce prices.  The law of demand is pretty easy to follow here.  But doesn’t the law of demand also imply that greater competition and reduced prices implies greater social costs in the form of more “problem drinking?”

On the margin, yes!  Why?  The state restrictions on retail competition as well as those at the wholesaler level, raise price to both marginal consumers with higher demand elasticities at current prices (a 1% increase in price will result in a decrease in consumption greater than 1%)  and infra-marginal drinkers with more inelastic demand at current prices (a 1% increase in price will result in a decrease in consumption less than 1%).  As Steve notes, the law of demand implies that unless the drinkers who create those social harms have perfectly inelastic demand, that is, there consumption is entirely invariant to changes in prices, there will be “some” effect on consumption from “problem drinkers,” and thus some positive effect in reducing external costs (see my earlier post on the CARE Act’s odd approach to burdens of proof regarding this issue).

But note that the source of externalities in this example come from a concentrated group.  As Cook and Moore (2002, p.122) note, “those in the top decile of the drinking distribution consume more than half of all ethanol. Since alcohol problems are also highly concentrated in this group, it seems reasonable to target alcohol-control policies at them.”  The impact of regulatory changes on alcohol consumption and behavior in this concentrated group should the margin focused upon for analysis of the magnitude of any “temperance” effect.

Fourth, as a sidenote, several studies have shown a negative relationship between alcohol prices (often measured by excise taxes) and socially harmful behavior. For example, Saffer & Grossman (1987) and Kenkel (1993) report negative relationships between alcohol prices and drunk-driving. Coate & Grossman (1988) find a negative relationship between price and self-reported underage drinking, but this result disappears when religion and other covariates are introduced. More recently, Markowitz & Grossman (1998) find a negative relationship between state beer excise taxes and domestic violence.  As Cooper and Wright point out in our paper, one potential reason for this seeming inconsistency between Boudreaux’s results (and the other results referred to in the article finding that deregulation increases consumption without increasing social harms, as well as our own results, discussed below) may be that earlier work on the relationship between alcohol prices and the harms we measure was based on samples from the 1970s and early 1980s and thus unable to include the effect of ZT and BAC08 laws. Consistent with more recent research [e.g., Carpenter (2004); Dee (2001)], it appears that ZT and BAC08 laws are important sources of reductions in drunk-driving and teen drinking. Specifically, our results suggest that ZT and BAC08 laws reduce alcohol-related accidents by 7-8% and 4-5%, respectively.

But there is no reason to believe that this reduction will be large, much less large enough to offset the welfare losses imposed on consumers in the form of higher prices and reduced output.  That is an empirical question.

Fifth, the studies finding that reductions in output associated with state-imposed restrictions on competition are not necessarily correlated with significant reductions in the social ills associated with problem drinking (alcohol-related deaths, DUIs, etc.) are consistent with what Cooper and Wright find in our recently study of state post and hold laws.  The post and hold laws operate at the wholesale level, but are also restrictions on competition, making price competition between wholesalers more expensive by prohibiting short-term price reductions, and of course, facilitating collusion by requiring that wholesalers share future price information with rivals in advance.  To review, we find that post and hold laws result in significant reductions in output — representing consumer welfare losses — without any statistically or practically relevant reduction in measures of alcohol-related social costs.  The lack of measurable effect may be because the reduction in consumption is relatively small, leading to only small behavioral changes for those in the top of the alcohol consumption distribution.

So — I’ve written a lot and am not sure I’ve answered Steve’s original question.  What should he tell his antitrust class about demand theory, antitrust vs. regulation, and political economy of privatization in light of the Virginia ABC example?  Here’s a few answers:

1. The Virginia ABC example does nothing to change the bottom line: (1) the law of demand lives on, (2) restrictions on competition reduce output and raise price and reduce consumer welfare, and (3) states frequently restrict competition with the predicted consequences — I might add the Demsetzian point that these state imposed restrictions are the toughest to get rid of, even for antitrust.

2. Calculating the impact of a regulatory change on consumer welfare can be tough.  Here, I think highlighting the tradeoff between welfare reductions of the conventional antitrust sort and reducing negative externalities would be a very useful exercise for the class.   On the theoretical end, I think it requires the distinction between marginal and infra-marginal consumers that is tool antitrust lawyers should have in their toolkit (price discrimination, market definition, vertical restraints, etc.).  While predicting the output effects are straightforward, the welfare analysis is a bit more complicated in economic terms.

3. For antitrust lawyers, it is worth thinking about how to convince a generalist judge about the relevant economics in this setting.   Having students understand the complexities and learn to simultaneously teach, translate and persuade the court of the relevant economic and empirical analysis is something we should be encouraging the students to think about on day one.

4. I can’t think of any great examples for the demand for limited government trumping the law of demand, but the persistence of the state alcohol monopolies despite their negative economic consequences on consumers gives a wonderful opportunity to talk about cartel formation and stability, as well as the political economy of these laws more generally.  For politics trumping economics more generally, see “Rent Control” or the proposed antitrust exemption for newspapers.

The Comprehensive Alcohol Regulatory Effectiveness Act — yes, the “CARE Act” — or HR 5034, is a piece of legislation aimed at supporting “State-based alcohol regulation.”  Recall the Supreme Court’s decision in Granholm v. Heald, which held that states could either allow in-state and out-of-state retailers to directly ship wine to consumers or could prohibit it for both, but couldn’t ban direct shipment only for out-of-state sellers while allowing in for in-state sellers.  Most states thus far have opened up direct shipping laws to the benefit of consumers.    While we occasionally criticize the Federal Trade Commission from time to time here at TOTM, its own research demonstrating that state regulation banning direct shipment and e-commerce harmed consumers is an excellent example of the potential for competition research and development impacting regulatory debates.  Indeed, Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in Granholm cites the FTC study (not to mention co-blogger Mike Sykuta’s work here) a number of times.  But in addition to direct shipment laws, there are a whole host of state laws regulating the sale and distribution of alcohol.  Some of them have obviously pernicious competitive consequences for consumers as well as producers.  The beneficiaries are the wholesalers who have successfully lobbied for the protection of the state.  Fundamentally, the CARE Act aims to place these laws beyond the reach of any challenge under the Commerce Clause as per Granholm, the Sherman Act, or any other federal legislation.  Whether the CARE Act has any ancillary social benefits is an important empirical question — but you can bet that the first-order effect of the law, if it were to go into effect, would be to increase beer, wine and liquor prices.  More on the CARE Act and state regulation of alcoholic beverages below the fold.

Continue Reading…