Abstract This article investigates whether merger remedies, such as divestitures, can cause more harm than good using a model of firm conduct. The model is estimated leveraging the variation generated by a large divestiture in the US beer market. First, I find that price coordination, materialized through conduct parameters, acts as a countervailing force that limits the pro-competitive effects of a divestiture. Price coordination eliminates about 80% to 133% of the welfare gains from a divestiture. Second, based on counterfactual simulations, I show that a merger cleared with divestiture is likely to reduce consumer surplus more than a merger approved without divestiture (JEL K21, L4, L13).
Yann Delaprez (Tue,) studied this question.