Waste-Merger Review
Two waste-management firms, A and B, propose a merger. In the local market A has 40% share and B 28%; four fringe firms each have 8%. The combined entity would control 68% of collections. Entry requires landfill permits and fleet investment, and no new permit has been granted in five years. The regulator's initial review finds that average collection prices rose 12% in the past two years while costs rose 5%. Residents complain about missed collections, and the landfill creates odour and leachate affecting nearby households. The firms argue the merger will reduce duplicate routes and lower costs by 8%, which could be passed to customers. The regulator can block the merger, approve it with a price cap, or allow it and impose a Pigouvian tax on landfill waste. Local councils are concerned about service quality and the budget.
1. Calculate the pre- and post-merger Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI), and evaluate the likely effect on market power.
Read the worked answer
Pre-merger HHI = 40² + 28² + 4(8²) = 1,600 + 784 + 256 = 2,640. Post-merger HHI = 68² + 4(8²) = 4,624 + 256 = 4,880, an increase of 2,240. Under common merger guidelines, a market above 2,500 is highly concentrated, and a change above 200 raises significant concerns. The merged firm would have 68% share and face a competitive fringe of four small firms. Entry barriers-landfill permits and fleet investment-make new entry slow. However, the merger may create efficiency gains of 8% through route consolidation. The regulator must weigh the risk of higher prices and lower service quality against cost savings. Market definition matters: if councils can switch to distant providers, the local share overstates power.
2. Compare blocking the merger, approving it with a price cap, and imposing a Pigouvian tax on landfill waste.
Read the worked answer
Blocking the merger preserves competition but may forgo cost savings. A price cap can protect consumers, but the regulator needs cost information and may set the cap too low, reducing investment, or too high, allowing excess profit. A Pigouvian tax on landfill waste targets the externality but does not address market power; it may raise costs and prices. Conditions such as divestment of routes or open access to the landfill could reduce concentration while allowing efficiency gains. Regulatory capture and asymmetric information are risks. Judgement: a conditional approval with divestment and a price cap is preferable if efficiency gains are verifiable; otherwise block.
3. Explain how the landfill externality affects the socially efficient level of waste collection and disposal.
Read the worked answer
The landfill odour and leachate are negative externalities; marginal social cost exceeds marginal private cost. A Pigouvian tax equal to marginal external cost would reduce waste and encourage recycling, but measuring the cost is difficult and may hit low-income households. The merger could internalise some route duplication but also increase market power. Service quality is hard to contract because missed collections are observable but odour is diffuse. Councils should combine environmental charges with performance standards.