Competition Policy and Antitrust Law: Implications of Developments in Supply Chain Management

Abstract

Building on research in supply chain management (SCM) that aids in the workings of society, the authors illustrate how SCM research can advance public policy and law. Using competition policy and antitrust law as an example, they consider how developments in SCM thought and practice augment economic understanding of vertical restraints involving minimum resale price maintenance (RPM). Developments affecting the organization of supply chains, firm‐level strategies for the management of retail distribution, and the interactions of supply chain participants are investigated. The findings advance knowledge of the primary procompetitive and anticompetitive theories of RPM found in competition policy and antitrust law. They also illustrate the potential of SCM to expand its reach and impact through studies that address the interplay of SCM and public policy and law.

From the Editors: Introduction to the Emerging Discourse Incubator on the Topic of Research at the Intersection of Supply Chain Management and Public Policy and Government Regulation

“…For instance, Harland et al (2019) recommend that researchers further examine the effectiveness of policy mechanisms in public procurement and other government-to-business contexts, such as customs, environmental sustainability, corporate social responsibility, and employment. Gundlach et al (2019) conclude with potentially fruitful opportunities for SCM researchers to inform public policy and law, such as other forms of price and nonprice constraints, mergers, environmental law, consumer law, and commercial law. Dobrzykowski (2019) provides the impetus for healthcare supply chain research that is properly grounded in the unique institutional and regulatory environment.…”

“…Dobrzykowski (2019) further notes that the role of physician employment on healthcare supply chain coordination varies globally from vertically integrated hospitals and physicians to highly decentralized systems. Gundlach et al (2019) provide the examples of European Union Directorate-General for Competition (2019) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2019) as competition-related PPGRs that would necessitate differential examinations. In combination, these reflect Dobrzykowski's (2019) contention that context matters.…”

“…Harland et al (2019) use Policy Feedback Theory as a means to understand why a PPGR does (not) work and how to change it. Gundlach et al (2019) review important competition and antitrust supply chain characteristics and use procompetitive theories (free rider thesis) and anticompetitive theories (forestalling competition thesis), to develop nine propositions related to one common form of supply chain price constraint. Tokar and Swink (2019) offer Neo-Institutional Economics (North, 1994) as one perspective to explain the dynamic back-and-forth nature of institutions, organizations, and individuals (Darby, 2019).…”

“…They note that SCM researchers’ focus on interdependencies, processes, and systems thinking can provide a stronger understanding of the intended and unintended consequences of PPGRs. Gundlach, Frankel and Krotz () further suggest that addressing this gap offers significant potential to distinctly augment other disciplines’ contributions to PPGRs. They contend that SCM researchers have the opportunity, and perhaps duty, to inform not only the application but also the development of PPGRs, using the example of competition policy and antitrust law.…”

“…Gundlach et al. () provide the examples of European Union Directorate‐General for Competition () and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission () as competition‐related PPGRs that would necessitate differential examinations. In combination, these reflect Dobrzykowski's () contention that context matters.…”