<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xml:lang="ru"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">moco</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="ru">Современная конкуренция / Journal of Modern Competition</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>Journal of Modern Competition</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">1993-7598</issn><issn pub-type="epub">2687-0657</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Московский университет «Синергия»</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.24411/1993-7598-2019-10401</article-id><article-id custom-type="edn" pub-id-type="custom">RJJEHM</article-id><article-id custom-type="elpub" pub-id-type="custom">moco-869</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="section-heading" xml:lang="ru"><subject>Статьи</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Проблема определения географического рынка: возрождение теста Эльзинги-Хогарти</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="en"><trans-title>The problem of the geographic market delineation: the revival of the Elzinga-Hogarty test</trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name-alternatives><name name-style="eastern" xml:lang="ru"><surname>Шаститко</surname><given-names>А.А.</given-names></name><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Shastitko</surname><given-names>A.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><email xlink:type="simple">shastitkoanastasia@gmail.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff-alternatives id="aff-1"><aff xml:lang="ru">РАНХиГС; МГУ им. Ломоносова; LLC Antitrust Advisory</aff><aff xml:lang="en">The Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration; Lomonosov Moscow State University</aff></aff-alternatives><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2019</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>13</day><month>08</month><year>2025</year></pub-date><volume>13</volume><issue>4</issue><fpage>5</fpage><lpage>16</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>Copyright &amp;#x00A9; Шаститко А., 2025</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2025</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Шаститко А.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Shastitko A.</copyright-holder><license license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple"><license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.</license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://www.moderncompetition.ru/jour/article/view/869">https://www.moderncompetition.ru/jour/article/view/869</self-uri><abstract><p>Статья посвящена проблеме определения географических границ рынка, в частности, рассмотрены суть данной процедуры, а также возможные сопутствующие подводные камни. Основным методом определения географических границ рынка, в том числе в России, является тест «гипотетического монополиста». Однако проведение данного теста такого качества, чтобы полученные результаты действительно отражали его преимущества, требует большого количества данных, которые далеко не всегда являются доступными. При этом отсутствие даже небольшого количества необходимых данных может значительно сказаться на достоверности полученных выводов. В этом случае возможно использование альтернативных методов определения географических границ рынка, в частности теста Эльзинги-Хогарти (Elzinga-Hogarty), который будет рассмотрен в данной статье. Основным преимуществом теста Эльзинги-Хогарти является его простота, в том числе тот факт, что он требует минимального количества данных. В данной статье рассматривается как сам тест, так и его недостатки, требующие проведения дополнительных тестов для повышения надежности полученных результатов. Основным выводом данной статьи является утверждение, что тест Эльзинги-Хогарти может стать решением проблемы определения географических границ рынка в условиях ограниченных ресурсов при проведении антимонопольного расследования, когда не все данные, необходимые для проведения теста «гипотетического монополиста» необходимого качества, являются доступными.</p></abstract><trans-abstract xml:lang="en"><p>The article concerns the problem of the geographic market delineation. Market definition is subject to a serious criticism, especially in the case of differentiated products, however, it remains an important element of economic analysis in the Russian antitrust law enforcement. The hypothetical monopolist test is the main approach to the market definition, because it captures well the idea behind the market definition. However, the data required for implementing the hypothetical monopolist test in a way that would give reliable results, is not always available. In this situation alternative approaches to the market definition might be used. This article analyses the Elzinga-Hogarty test, which in combination with a list of price tests might become a useful tool of economic analysis. Its main advantage is that it does not require a lot of data, and its results do not become completely corrupt in the case when some data is missing. The main take away of this article is that in the situation when resources available for an antitrust investigation are limited, and data, which is required to implement the hypothetical monopolist test of necessary quality, is not available, the Elzinga-Hogarty test might become an alternative to the hypothetical monopolist test and be used to define geographic markets. The logic of the test, its limitations and additional evidence, which should be used to make the conclusions reliable, are discussed in this article.</p></trans-abstract></article-meta></front><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="cit1"><label>1</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Шаститко А. Е., Мелешкина А. И., Дозмаров К. В. Риски ошибок в применении антимонопольного законодательства: эффекты шоков спроса и предложения // Управленец. 2019. № 3. с. 2-13.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Шаститко А. Е., Мелешкина А. И., Дозмаров К. В. Риски ошибок в применении антимонопольного законодательства: эффекты шоков спроса и предложения // Управленец. 2019. № 3. с. 2-13.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit2"><label>2</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Шаститко А. Е., Шаститко А. А. Рынки связанных по производству товаров: теоретическая модель и уроки для правоприменения // Вопросы экономики. 2015. № 2. с. 104-122.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Шаститко А. Е., Шаститко А. А. Рынки связанных по производству товаров: теоретическая модель и уроки для правоприменения // Вопросы экономики. 2015. № 2. с. 104-122.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit3"><label>3</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Baker J. B. Market definition: an analytical overview // Antitrust Law Journal. 2007. Vol. 74. № 1. Pp. 129-173.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Baker J. B. Market definition: an analytical overview // Antitrust Law Journal. 2007. Vol. 74. № 1. Pp. 129-173.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit4"><label>4</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Capps C.S., Dranove, D., Greenstein, S., Satterthwaite M. The Silent Majority Fallacy of the Elzinga-Hogarty Criteria: A Critique and New Approach to Analyzing Hospital Mergers // National Bureau of Economic Research working paper No. W8216. 2001.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Capps C.S., Dranove, D., Greenstein, S., Satterthwaite M. The Silent Majority Fallacy of the Elzinga-Hogarty Criteria: A Critique and New Approach to Analyzing Hospital Mergers // National Bureau of Economic Research working paper No. W8216. 2001.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit5"><label>5</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Elzinga K. G., Hogarty T. F. The Problem of Geographic Market Delineation in Antimerger Suits // Antitrust Bulletin. 1973. № 18. Pp. 45-18.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Elzinga K. G., Hogarty T. F. The Problem of Geographic Market Delineation in Antimerger Suits // Antitrust Bulletin. 1973. № 18. Pp. 45-18.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit6"><label>6</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Elzinga K. G., Hogarty T. F. The Problem of Geographic Market Delineation Revisited: The Case of Coal // Antitrust Bulletin. 1978. № 23. Pp. 1-18.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Elzinga K. G., Hogarty T. F. The Problem of Geographic Market Delineation Revisited: The Case of Coal // Antitrust Bulletin. 1978. № 23. Pp. 1-18.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit7"><label>7</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Elzinga K. G. Defining Geographic Market Boundaries // Antitrust Bulletin. 1981. № 26. Pp. 739-752.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Elzinga K. G. Defining Geographic Market Boundaries // Antitrust Bulletin. 1981. № 26. Pp. 739-752.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit8"><label>8</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Elzinga K. G., Swisher A. W. Limits of the Elzinga-Hogarty Test in Hospital 10 Mergers: The Evanston Case // International Journal of the Economics of Business. 2011. Vol. 18. № 1. Pp. 133-146.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Elzinga K. G., Swisher A. W. Limits of the Elzinga-Hogarty Test in Hospital 10 Mergers: The Evanston Case // International Journal of the Economics of Business. 2011. Vol. 18. № 1. Pp. 133-146.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit9"><label>9</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Fletcher A., Lyons B. Geographic market definition in European Commission merger control // Centre for Competition Policy. University of East Anglia. Norwich. 2016.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Fletcher A., Lyons B. Geographic market definition in European Commission merger control // Centre for Competition Policy. University of East Anglia. Norwich. 2016.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit10"><label>10</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Frech H. E., Langenfeld J., McCluer R. F. Elzinga-Hogarty Tests and Alternative Approaches for Market Share Calculations in Hospital Markets // Antitrust Law Journal. 2004. Vol. 71 № 3. Pp. 921-947.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Frech H. E., Langenfeld J., McCluer R. F. Elzinga-Hogarty Tests and Alternative Approaches for Market Share Calculations in Hospital Markets // Antitrust Law Journal. 2004. Vol. 71 № 3. Pp. 921-947.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit11"><label>11</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Gaynor M., Kleiner S. A., Vogt W. B. A Structural Approach to Market Definition with an Application to the Hospital Industry // Journal of Industrial Economics. 2013. Vol. 61. № 2. Pp. 243-289.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Gaynor M., Kleiner S. A., Vogt W. B. A Structural Approach to Market Definition with an Application to the Hospital Industry // Journal of Industrial Economics. 2013. Vol. 61. № 2. Pp. 243-289.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit12"><label>12</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Hatzitaskos K., Card D., Howell V. Guidelines on Quantitative Techniques for Competition Analysis // The Regional Competition Center for Latin America under the World Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program "Strengthening competition policy in Latin American Countries". 2012.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Hatzitaskos K., Card D., Howell V. Guidelines on Quantitative Techniques for Competition Analysis // The Regional Competition Center for Latin America under the World Bank-Netherlands Partnership Program "Strengthening competition policy in Latin American Countries". 2012.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit13"><label>13</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Scheffman D. T., Spiller P. T. Geographic Market Definition under the U. S. Department of Justice Merger Guidelines // The Journal of Law &amp; Economics. 1987. Vol. 30 № 1. Pp. 123-147.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Scheffman D. T., Spiller P. T. Geographic Market Definition under the U. S. Department of Justice Merger Guidelines // The Journal of Law &amp; Economics. 1987. Vol. 30 № 1. Pp. 123-147.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit14"><label>14</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Stigler G. J. Theory of Oligopoly // The Journal of Political Economy. 1964. Vol. 72. № 1. Pp. 44-61.</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Stigler G. J. Theory of Oligopoly // The Journal of Political Economy. 1964. Vol. 72. № 1. Pp. 44-61.</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref></ref-list><fn-group><fn fn-type="conflict"><p>The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.</p></fn></fn-group></back></article>
