arbiter
JournalsAccount

Equivalence between tying and vertical integration with Pareto‐improving foreclosure

Yong Chao & Babu Nahata

Economic Inquiry2026https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.70049article
AJG 3ABDC A
Weight
0.50

Abstract

This paper explores the relationships among tying, partial integration (PI), and full integration (FI) when an input monopolist can require downstream buyers to purchase a competitively supplied input from it (tying) or integrate forward in the downstream market. Both tying and integration foreclose the independent supply of the other input, yet we show that tying and PI are always equivalent in equilibrium, even under general production technologies—extending Blair and Kaserman, who focus on FI and linearly homogeneous production. In contrast, tying and FI are not always equivalent; we derive necessary and sufficient conditions for their equivalence and show that, when nonequivalent, tying can generate higher total welfare than FI. We also identify conditions under which either practice can be Pareto improving relative to the non‐tying/non‐integration benchmark. These findings contribute to the economic foundation for evaluating tying and integration in antitrust policy.

Open via your library →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.70049

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{yong2026,
  title        = {{Equivalence between tying and vertical integration with Pareto‐improving foreclosure}},
  author       = {Yong Chao & Babu Nahata},
  journal      = {Economic Inquiry},
  year         = {2026},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/ecin.70049},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Equivalence between tying and vertical integration with Pareto‐improving foreclosure

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.

Evidence weight

0.50

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20
M · momentum0.50 × 0.15 = 0.07
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.