Abstract

Two articles of eminent lawyer (Kaplow) and economists (Farrell and Shapiro) have recently questioned the relevance and the utility itself of the notion of the relevant market. These articles do not confine themselves to show the main critiques but also propose different options. In this short paper we broadly review those present methodologies which can be used in substitution of market definition. We portray a dark and light picture in which only a few types of antitrust interventions (against cartels and unilateral effects of mergers) can be considered fully freed from the recourse to the definition of the relevant market. For others (against coordinated effects of mergers or abuses of dominant positions) we are still waiting for substantial advances either in the economic analysis or in empirical techniques. In these cases the notion of relevant market maintains its role to some extent but it requires to be complemented by further indicators.