Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T00:40:53.500Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strategic Behavior in Whiskey Distilling, 1887–1895

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2003

Karen Clay  and
Werner Troesken
Karen Clay
Affiliation:
Heinz School of Public Policy and Management, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213. E-mail: [email protected].
Werner Troesken
Affiliation:
Department of History, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA 15260, and Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article shows that the Whiskey Trust used exclusive dealing and unusually low prices to deter entry and competition. Evidence of this is based on a unique dataset that allows us to estimate a firm-level demand curve for the trust, and to construct direct estimates of marginal cost. This article also shows that the strategies employed by the trust failed to deter entry. Market structure and state-level antitrust enforcement account for the failure of these strategies.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 62 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 999 - 1023
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bork, Robert H. The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself. New York: The Free Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Burns, Malcolm R. 1986. “Predatory Pricing and the Acquisition Cost of Competitors.“ Journal of Political Economy, 266-96.Google Scholar
Chicago Tribune, various issues, cited in text as CT.Google Scholar
Downard, William L. Dictionary of the History of the American Brewing and Distilling Industries. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Ellison, Glenn, and Ellison, Sara Fisher. “Strategic Entry Deterrence and the Behavior of Pharmaceutical Incumbents Prior to Patent Expiration.“Unpublished paper, MIT, 1999.Google Scholar
Farrell, Maurice L. The Dow Jones Averages, 1885-1970. New York: Dow Jones and Company, 1972.Google Scholar
Genesove, David, and Mullin, Wallace P.. “Testing Static Oligopoly Models: Conduct and Cost in the Sugar Industry, 1890-1914.” Rand Journal of Economics 29, no. 3 (1998): 355-77.Google Scholar
Genesove, David, and Mullin, Wallace P.. “Predation and Its Rate of Return: The Sugar Industry, 1887-1914.” Department of Economics, Hebrew University; and Department of Economics, Michigan State University, 1999.Google Scholar
Granitz, Elizabeth, and Klein, Benjamin. “Monopolization and Raising Rivals’ Costs: The Standard Oil Case.” Journal of Law and Economics 39, no. 1 (1996): 1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kadiyali, V. “Entry, Its Deterrence and Its Accommodation: A Study of the U.S. Photographic Film Industry.” Rand Journal of Economics 27, no. 3 (1996): 452-78.Google Scholar
Krattenmaker, Thomas G., and Salop, Steven C.. “Competition and Cooperation in the Market for Exclusionary Rights.” American Economic Review 76, no. 1 (1986): 109-13.Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi R. The Great Merger Movement in American Business, 1895—1904. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 1985.Google Scholar
Levenstein, Margaret C. “Do Price Wars Facilitate Collusion? A Study of the Bromine Cartel before World War 1.” Explorations in Economic History 33, no. 1 (1996): 107-37.Google Scholar
McCusker, John J. How Much is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States. Worcester, MA: American Antiquarian Society, 1992.Google Scholar
Miron, Jeffrey A., and Romer, Christina D.. “A New Monthly Index of Industrial Production, 1884-1940.” This Journal 50, no. 2 (1990): 321-37.Google Scholar
New York Times, various issues, cited in text as NYT.Google Scholar
Porter, Robert H. “A Study of Cartel Stability: The Joint Executive Committee, 1880-1886.” BellJournal of Economics 14, no. 2 (1983): 301-14.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. Antitrust Law: An Economic Perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Salop, Steven C., and Scheffman, David T.. “Raising Rivals’ Costs.” American Economic Review 73, no. 2 (1983): 267-71.Google Scholar
Thorelli, Hans B. The Federal Antitrust Policy: Origination of an American Tradition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1955.Google Scholar
Troesken, Werner. “Antitrust Enforcement Before the Sherman Act: The Break-up of the Chicago Gas Trust Company.” Explorations in Economic History 32, no. 1 (1995): 109-36.Google Scholar
Troesken, Werner. “Exclusive Dealing and the Whiskey Trust, 1890-1895.” This Journal 58, no. 3 (1998): 755-78.Google Scholar
Troesken, Werner. “Did the Trusts Want A Federal Antitrust Law? An Event Study of the Sherman Antitrust Act and State Antitrust Regulation.” In Public Choice Interpretations of American Economic History, edited by Heckelman, Jac C., Moorhouse, John C., and Whaples, Robert M., 77–104. New York: Kluwer Academic Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Troesken, Werner, and Clay, Karen. “Did the Trusts Have Market Power? Evidence from Distilling, 1881-1899.” University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University, 1999.Google Scholar
United States. Annual Report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Washington, DC: GPO, various years, 1881-1899. (Cited in text as IRS.)Google Scholar
United States. Census of Manufacturers. Part III. Special Reports for Selected Industries. Washington, DC: GPO, 1902.Google Scholar
United States. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics. Washington, DC: GPO. Various years, 1937-1938.Google Scholar
United States, Department of Commerce and Labor. Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor. No. 29 July, 1900. Washington, DC: GPO, 1900. (Cited in text as BLS 1900.)Google Scholar
United States, Department of Commerce and Labor. Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor. No. 39. March, 1902. Washington, DC: GPO, 1902. (Cited in text as BLS 1902.)Google Scholar
United States, Department of Commerce and Labor. Bulletin of the Bureau of Labor. No. 53. July, 1904. Washington, DC: GPO, 1904. (Cited in text as BLS 1904.)Google Scholar
United States, Department of the Treasury. Bureau of Statistics. Monthly Summary of Commerce and Finance of the United States. January, 1900. 56th Congress, 1st Session. House of Representatives. Doc. No. 15, Part 7. Washington, DC: GPO, 1900.Google Scholar
United States, Department of the Treasury. Bureau of Statistics. Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1900. Washington, DC: GPO, 1901.Google Scholar
United States, Industrial Commission. Reports. Volume 1. Trusts. 56th Congress, 1st Session. House Documents. Volume 93, No. 476, Part I, 1900. (Cited in text as IC.)Google Scholar
Warren, George F., Pearson, Frank A., and Stoker, Herman M.. Wholesale Prices for 213 Years, 1720 to 1932. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University, Agricultural Experiment Station, Memior 412, 1932.Google Scholar
Weiman, David F., and Levin, Richard C.. “Preying for Monopoly? The Case of Southern Bell Telephone Company: 1894-1912.” Journal of Political Economy 102, no. 1 (1994): 103-26.Google Scholar