MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1564318602 · doi:10.22004/ag.econ.273741

Acquisitions as a Response to Deregulation: Evidence from the Cable Television Industry

2010· preprint· en· W1564318602 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
David Byrne

Bibliographic record

VenueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA) · 2010
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicConsumer Market Behavior and Pricing
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLicenseCounterfactual thinkingDeregulationEconomies of scaleIndustrial organizationEconomies of agglomerationProfit (economics)BusinessMergers and acquisitionsMicroeconomicsEconomicsEconometricsFinanceMarket economyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the dynamics of an industry that is subject to exclusive geographical licensing. I develop a model of license ownership that predicts the evolution of profit-maximizing entry and acquisition decisions by firms over time, starting from an initial allocation of licenses. The entry and acquisition process is modeled as a one-sided coalition-formation game as in Farrell and Scotchmer (1988), where acquisition payoffs depend on economies of scale and agglomeration (economies of density). I estimate the model for the cable television industry in Canada using a panel that I have constructed from 1990 to 1996. The dataset builds up from the national regulator’s license-ownership decision files, and contains license-level information on acquisition decisions, subscribership, and subscription profits. The model is estimated in two steps. I first estimate firms’ license-level profit functions, and then estimate the parameters of the fixed, merger and entry cost functions by Simulated Maximum Likelihood. Through counterfactual simulations, I use the estimated model to quantify the extent to which economies of scale and density drive acquisition behaviour, and to evaluate how merger activity reacts to a partial deregulation that occurs in 1994. Counterfactual experiments are also used to evaluate policies that stimulate entry or reduce acquisitions in the early years of the sample. The main finding is that these policies can lead to more productive dominant firms in the long-run as the industry consolidates.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.121

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgEcon Search (University of Minnesota, USA)Same topicConsumer Market Behavior and PricingFrench-language works237,207