pith. sign in

arxiv: 2202.07609 · v4 · submitted 2022-02-15 · 💰 econ.GN · q-fin.EC

The Evolution of U.S. Retail Concentration

Dominic A. Smith , Sergio Ocampo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 12:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💰 econ.GN q-fin.EC
keywords retail concentrationlocal marketsmulti-market firmsgross marginsnational concentrationmarket powerUS retailCensus data
0
0 comments X

The pith

Increases in local retail concentration explain one-quarter to one-third of the rise in retail gross margins.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper tracks retail concentration trends using product-level revenue data for every U.S. store from the Census between 1992 and 2012. Local concentration rose in step with national concentration across most markets, products, and retail industries. Multi-market firms entering new locations account for the bulk of the national rise, while gains in local market shares grew more important after 1997 and single-market firms played little role. The central result is that these local concentration increases can account for 25 to 33 percent of the observed growth in retail gross margins. A reader should care because local market structure shapes the prices and choices consumers face in their own neighborhoods.

Core claim

Using novel Census data on product-level revenue for all U.S. retail stores between 1992 and 2012, local concentration increased almost in parallel with national concentration. The expansion of multi-market firms into new markets explains most of the increase in national retail concentration, with consolidation via increases in local market shares increasing in importance between 1997 and 2007, and single-market firms playing a negligible role. Increases in local concentration can explain one-quarter to one-third of the observed rise in retail gross margins.

What carries the argument

Product-level revenue data that separate multi-market firm expansion from local market-share gains to measure concentration at both national and local scales.

If this is right

  • Multi-market firm expansion into new locations drives most national concentration growth.
  • Local concentration rose broadly across markets, products, and industries.
  • Local share consolidation within markets gained relative importance after 1997.
  • Single-market firms contribute negligibly to measured concentration changes.
  • Local concentration increases account for 25-33 percent of retail gross margin growth.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • National concentration statistics alone may understate the market-power effects felt by consumers who buy locally.
  • Antitrust attention to local market overlaps could affect margin trends more directly than national merger reviews.
  • The same data patterns could be checked in later years to test whether e-commerce reversed the local concentration rise.

Load-bearing premise

The Census product-level revenue data correctly identify multi-market versus single-market firms and accurately define the geographic scope of local markets without substantial measurement error or misclassification.

What would settle it

Recomputing the margin regression with alternative local market boundaries or firm classifications that eliminates the link between local concentration changes and gross margin growth would falsify the one-quarter to one-third contribution claim.

read the original abstract

Increases in national concentration have been a salient feature of industry dynamics in the U.S. and have contributed to concerns about increasing market power. Yet, local trends may be more informative about market power, particularly in the retail sector where consumers have traditionally shopped at nearby stores. We find that local concentration has increased almost in parallel with national concentration using novel Census data on product-level revenue for all U.S. retail stores between 1992 and 2012. The increases in concentration are broad based, affecting most markets, products, and retail industries. We show that the expansion of multi-market firms into new markets explains most of the increase in national retail concentration, with consolidation via increases in local market shares increasing in importance between 1997 and 2007, and single-market firms playing a negligible role. Finally, we find that increases in local concentration can explain one-quarter to one-third of the observed rise in retail gross margins.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The paper uses novel Census data on product-level revenues for all U.S. retail stores (1992–2012) to show that local concentration rose in parallel with national concentration, that multi-market firm expansion accounts for most of the national increase (with local share consolidation rising in importance 1997–2007), and that local concentration increases explain one-quarter to one-third of the observed rise in retail gross margins.

Significance. If the local-market definitions and firm classifications are accurate, the paper supplies high-value descriptive evidence on the sources of rising retail concentration and a quantitative link to margin growth using comprehensive administrative microdata; the broad-based nature of the trends and the decomposition between multi- and single-market firms are particularly useful for distinguishing national versus local market-power concerns.

major comments (2)
  1. [Data and Methods] Data-construction section: the headline attribution (one-quarter to one-third of the margin rise) is obtained by multiplying observed changes in local concentration by an estimated concentration-margin elasticity; any systematic error in the geographic boundaries chosen for local markets or in the parent-firm linkages that classify establishments as multi-market versus single-market therefore propagates directly into the 25–33 % figure, yet the manuscript provides no robustness checks to alternative market definitions (county, zip-code, or commuting-zone) or to alternative firm-linkage thresholds.
  2. [Section 4] Decomposition results (Section 4): the claim that multi-market expansion explains most of the national concentration increase rests on correctly identifying when a firm operates across the chosen local-market boundaries; without reported validation of the establishment-to-firm matching or sensitivity to market-size cutoffs, the relative importance of multi-market entry versus within-market share growth cannot be taken as definitive.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Tables and Figures] Table and figure captions should explicitly state the exact geographic unit and product aggregation level used for each concentration measure.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract states the 25–33 % margin attribution without noting the precise elasticity or the period over which it is applied; a short clarifying sentence would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive report and for recognizing the value of the descriptive evidence on retail concentration trends. We address each major comment below. The referee correctly notes the absence of certain robustness checks in the current manuscript; we will incorporate them in revision.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Data and Methods] Data-construction section: the headline attribution (one-quarter to one-third of the margin rise) is obtained by multiplying observed changes in local concentration by an estimated concentration-margin elasticity; any systematic error in the geographic boundaries chosen for local markets or in the parent-firm linkages that classify establishments as multi-market versus single-market therefore propagates directly into the 25–33 % figure, yet the manuscript provides no robustness checks to alternative market definitions (county, zip-code, or commuting-zone) or to alternative firm-linkage thresholds.

    Authors: We agree that systematic error in market boundaries or firm linkages would affect the 25–33% attribution. The current draft does not report robustness to alternative definitions. In the revision we will add results using county-level, zip-code-level, and commuting-zone definitions, as well as sensitivity checks on firm-linkage thresholds, and will show how these alternatives affect both the concentration trends and the margin decomposition. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Section 4] Decomposition results (Section 4): the claim that multi-market expansion explains most of the national concentration increase rests on correctly identifying when a firm operates across the chosen local-market boundaries; without reported validation of the establishment-to-firm matching or sensitivity to market-size cutoffs, the relative importance of multi-market entry versus within-market share growth cannot be taken as definitive.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the decomposition relies on accurate establishment-to-firm linkages and the chosen market boundaries. The manuscript does not currently include explicit validation exercises or sensitivity to market-size cutoffs. We will add these in revision: we will report the share of establishments with unambiguous parent-firm identifiers, conduct sensitivity to alternative market-size thresholds, and show how the multi-market versus single-market decomposition changes under these alternatives. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity; paper performs direct empirical tabulations and decompositions on Census records.

full rationale

The analysis consists of tabulating product-level revenue data to compute concentration measures at national and local levels, decomposing changes into multi-market expansion versus within-market share growth, and attributing a share of margin increases to concentration changes via observed trends. No equations define a quantity in terms of itself, no fitted parameters are relabeled as out-of-sample predictions, and no uniqueness theorems or ansatzes are imported via self-citation to force the result. The 25-33% attribution is an accounting product of measured concentration deltas and a separately computed elasticity; both inputs are external to any closed derivation loop within the paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

This is a purely empirical descriptive study. No free parameters are fitted to produce the headline claims, no new entities are postulated, and the analysis rests on standard administrative data and conventional market definitions.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption Standard definitions of local geographic markets and revenue-based concentration ratios are appropriate for measuring retail competition.
    The abstract's attribution of concentration changes to multi-market expansion and its margin calculation presuppose conventional market-boundary and share definitions.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5684 in / 1265 out tokens · 28476 ms · 2026-05-24T12:10:09.085827+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 global.max substring 't := if while FUNCTION word.in bbl.in capitalize " " * FUNCT...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Williams, 2019

    Adams, Brian and Kevin R. Williams, 2019. Zone Pricing in Retail Oligopoly . American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 11(1):124--56, ://dx.doi.org/10.1257/mic.20170130

    work page doi:10.1257/mic.20170130 2019

  3. [3]

    Estimation of Dynamic Discrete Choice Models in Continuous Time with an Application to Retail Competition

    Arcidiacono, Peter, Patrick Bayer, Jason R Blevins, and Paul B Ellickson, 2016. Estimation of Dynamic Discrete Choice Models in Continuous Time with an Application to Retail Competition . Review of Economic Studies 83(3):889--931, ://dx.doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdw012

    work page doi:10.1093/restud/rdw012 2016

  4. [4]

    Pricing-to-Market, Trade Costs, and International Relative Prices

    Atkeson, Andrew and Ariel Burstein, 2008. Pricing-to-Market, Trade Costs, and International Relative Prices . American Economic Review 98(5):1998--2031, ://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.5.1998

    work page doi:10.1257/aer.98.5.1998 2008

  5. [5]

    Katz, Christina Patterson, and John Van Reenen , 2020

    Autor, David H., David Dorn, Lawrence F. Katz, Christina Patterson, and John Van Reenen , 2020. The Fall of the Labor Share and the Rise of Superstar Firms . The Quarterly Journal of Economics 135(2):645--709, ://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjaa004

    work page doi:10.1093/qje/qjaa004 2020

  6. [6]

    Estimating

    Azar, Jos \' e , Steven T. Berry, and Ioana Elena Marinescu , 2019. Estimating Labor Market Power . ://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3456277 (accessed 2020-03-20)

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.3456277 2019

  7. [7]

    Common Ownership in Labor Markets

    Azar, Jos \' e , Yue Qiu, and Aaron Sojourner , 2022. Common Ownership in Labor Markets . Upjohn Institute Working Paper Series No 22-368, ://dx.doi.org/0.17848/wp22-368

    work page 2022

  8. [8]

    Decker, 2017

    Barnatchez, Keith, Leland Dod Crane, and Ryan A. Decker, 2017. An Assessment of the National Establishment Time Series (Nets) Database . Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System: Finance and Economics Discussion Series No. 2017-1, ://dx.doi.org/10.17016/FEDS.2017.110

    work page doi:10.17016/feds.2017.110 2017

  9. [9]

    Job Creation or Destruction? Labor Market Effects of Wal-Mart Expansion

    Basker, Emek, 2005. Job Creation or Destruction? Labor Market Effects of Wal-Mart Expansion . The Review of Economics and Statistics 87(1):174--183, ://dx.doi.org/10.1162/0034653053327568

    work page doi:10.1162/0034653053327568 2005

  10. [10]

    The Causes and Consequences of Wal-Mart's Growth

    Basker, Emek, 2007. The Causes and Consequences of Wal-Mart's Growth. Journal of Economic Perspectives 21(3):177--198, ://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.21.3.177

    work page doi:10.1257/jep.21.3.177 2007

  11. [11]

    Supersize It: The Growth of Retail Chains and the Rise of the "Big-Box" Store

    Basker, Emek, Shawn D Klimek, and Pham Hoang Van , 2012. Supersize It: The Growth of Retail Chains and the Rise of the "Big-Box" Store . Journal of Economics and Management Strategy 21(3):541--582, ://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-9134.2012.00339.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1530-9134.2012.00339.x 2012

  12. [12]

    Lanier, Ali Yurukoglu, and Anthony Lee Zhang, 2021

    Benkard, C. Lanier, Ali Yurukoglu, and Anthony Lee Zhang, 2021. Concentration in Product Markets. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 28745, ://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w28745

    work page doi:10.3386/w28745 2021

  13. [13]

    Labor Market Power

    Berger, David, Kyle Herkenhoff, and Simon Mongey, 2022. Labor Market Power. American Economic Review 112(4):1147--93, ://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191521

    work page doi:10.1257/aer.20191521 2022

  14. [14]

    Entry and Profits in an Aging Economy: The Role of Consumer Inertia

    Bornstein, Gideon, 2018. Entry and Profits in an Aging Economy: The Role of Consumer Inertia . ://www.dropbox.com/s/8ud1oukigjqd9i6/JMP\_Bornstein.pdf (accessed 2020-12-15)

    work page 2018

  15. [15]

    Differences in Differentiation: Rising Variety and Markups in Retail Food Stores

    Brand, James, 2020. Differences in Differentiation: Rising Variety and Markups in Retail Food Stores . ://www.jamesbrandecon.com/s/Brand\_JMP\_Oct10.pdf (accessed 2020-12-15)

    work page 2020

  16. [16]

    Empirical studies of industries with market power

    Bresnahan, Timothy F., 1989. Empirical studies of industries with market power. Handbook of Industrial Organization pp. 1011--1057, ch 17, vol. 2, ://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1573-448X(89)02005-4

    work page doi:10.1016/s1573-448x(89)02005-4 1989

  17. [17]

    Current Employment Statistics

    Bureau of Labor Statistics , 2019. Current Employment Statistics . ://www.bls.gov/ces/ (accessed 2020-03-20)

    work page 2019

  18. [18]

    Hyatt, Toshihiko Mukoyama, and Erick Sager, 2019

    Cao, Dan, Henry R. Hyatt, Toshihiko Mukoyama, and Erick Sager, 2019. Firm Growth Through New Establishments . ://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3361451 (accessed 2019-09-23)

    work page doi:10.2139/ssrn.3361451 2019

  19. [19]

    Decker, 2020

    Crane, Leland Dod and Ryan A. Decker, 2020. Research with private sector business microdata: The case of NETS/D & B . ://conference.nber.org/conf\_papers/f142811.pdf (accessed 2020-01-04)

    work page 2020

  20. [20]

    The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications

    De Loecker , Jan, Jan Eeckhout, and Gabriel Unger , 2020. The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications . The Quarterly Journal of Economics 135(2):561--644, ://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz041

    work page doi:10.1093/qje/qjz041 2020

  21. [21]

    Discussion of ``Diverging Trends in National and Local Concentration''

    Decker, Ryan, 2020. Discussion of ``Diverging Trends in National and Local Concentration'' . ://rdeckernet.github.io/website/2020ASSA_discussion_RST.pdf

    work page 2020

  22. [22]

    Jarmin, and Javier Miranda, 2014

    Decker, Ryan A., John C Haltiwanger, Ron S. Jarmin, and Javier Miranda, 2014. The Role of Entrepreneurship in US Job Creation and Economic Dynamism . Journal of Economic Perspectives 28(3):3--24, ://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.3.3

    work page doi:10.1257/jep.28.3.3 2014

  23. [23]

    Jarmin, and Javier Miranda, 2020

    Decker, Ryan A., John C Haltiwanger, Ron S. Jarmin, and Javier Miranda, 2020. Changing Business Dynamism and Productivity: Shocks vs. Responsiveness . American Economic Review 110(12):3952--90, ://dx.doi.org/10.1257/aer.20190680

    work page doi:10.1257/aer.20190680 2020

  24. [24]

    Uniform Pricing in U.S

    Dellavigna, Stefano and Matthew Gentzkow, 2019. Uniform Pricing in U.S. Retail Chains . The Quarterly Journal of Economics 134(4):2011--2084, ://dx.doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz019

    work page doi:10.1093/qje/qjz019 2019

  25. [25]

    Horizontal Merger Guidelines

    Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission , 2010. Horizontal Merger Guidelines . Tech. rep., Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission. ://www.justice.gov/atr/file/810276/download (accessed 2019-09-23)

    work page 2010

  26. [26]

    How Costly Are Markups? ://www.virgiliumidrigan.com/uploads/1/3/9/8/13982648/how-costly-markups-01-14-19.pdf (accessed 2019-09-23)

    Edmond, Chris, Virgiliu Midrigan, and Daniel Yi Xu, 2019. How Costly Are Markups? ://www.virgiliumidrigan.com/uploads/1/3/9/8/13982648/how-costly-markups-01-14-19.pdf (accessed 2019-09-23)

    work page 2019

  27. [27]

    The Effects of Industry Classification Changes on US Employment Composition

    Fort, Teresa C and Shawn D Klimek, 2018. The Effects of Industry Classification Changes on US Employment Composition . U.S. Census Bureau Center for Economic Studies Working Papers No. 18-28, ://www.census.gov/library/working-papers/2018/adrm/ces-wp-18-28.html

    work page 2018

  28. [28]

    J Krizan, 2006

    Foster, Lucia, John Haltiwanger, and C. J Krizan, 2006. Market Selection , Reallocation , and Restructuring in the U . S . Retail Trade Sector in the 1990s. Review of Economics and Statistics 88(4):748--758, ://dx.doi.org/10.1162/rest.88.4.748

    work page doi:10.1162/rest.88.4.748 2006

  29. [29]

    Krizan, and Scott Ohlmacher, 2016

    Foster, Lucia, John C Haltiwanger, Shawn D Klimek, C.J. Krizan, and Scott Ohlmacher, 2016. The Evolution of National Retail Chains: How We Got Here . Handbook on the Economics of Retailing and Distribution pp. 7--37, ch 1, ://dx.doi.org/10.4337/9781783477388

    work page doi:10.4337/9781783477388 2016

  30. [30]

    Growing Oligopolies, Prices, Output, and Productivity

    Ganapati, Sharat, 2021. Growing Oligopolies, Prices, Output, and Productivity. American Economic Journal: Microeconomics 13(3):309--27, ://dx.doi.org/10.1257/mic.20190029

    work page doi:10.1257/mic.20190029 2021

  31. [31]

    IO in I-O: Size, Industrial Organization, and the Input-Output Network Make a Firm Structurally Important

    Grassi, Basile, 2017. IO in I-O: Size, Industrial Organization, and the Input-Output Network Make a Firm Structurally Important . ://sites.google.com/site/grassibasile/home/research/job-market-paper (accessed 2020-04-23)

    work page 2017

  32. [32]

    Are US Industries Becoming More Concentrated? Review of Finance 23(4):697--743, ://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfz007

    Grullon, Gustavo, Yelena Larkin, and Roni Michaely, 2019. Are US Industries Becoming More Concentrated? Review of Finance 23(4):697--743, ://dx.doi.org/10.1093/rof/rfz007

    work page doi:10.1093/rof/rfz007 2019

  33. [33]

    New Evidence of the Markup of Prices Over Marginal Costs and the Role of Mega-Firms in the US Economy

    Hall, Robert E, 2018. New Evidence of the Markup of Prices Over Marginal Costs and the Role of Mega-Firms in the US Economy . National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 24574, ://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w24574

    work page doi:10.3386/w24574 2018

  34. [34]

    Jarmin, and C

    Haltiwanger, John C, Ron S. Jarmin, and C. J. Krizan, 2010. Mom-and-Pop Meet Big-Box: Complements or Substitutes? Journal of Urban Economics 67(1):116--134, ://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2009.09.003

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jue.2009.09.003 2010

  35. [35]

    The Diffusion of Wal-Mart and Economies of Density

    Holmes, Thomas J., 2011. The Diffusion of Wal-Mart and Economies of Density. Econometrica 79(1):253--302, ://dx.doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA7699

    work page doi:10.3982/ecta7699 2011

  36. [36]

    The Ongoing Evolution of US Retail: A Format Tug-of-War

    Horta c su, Ali and Chad Syverson , 2015. The Ongoing Evolution of US Retail: A Format Tug-of-War . Journal of Economic Perspectives 29(4):89--112, ://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.4.89

    work page doi:10.1257/jep.29.4.89 2015

  37. [37]

    The Industrial Revolution in Services

    Hsieh, Chang-Tai and Esteban Rossi-Hansberg, 2023. The Industrial Revolution in Services. Journal of Political Economy Macroeconomics 1(1):3--42, ://dx.doi.org/10.1086/723009

    work page doi:10.1086/723009 2023

  38. [38]

    and Javier Miranda, 2002

    Jarmin, Ron S. and Javier Miranda, 2002. Data for: The Longitudinal Business Database (1976-2012). ://www2.census.gov/library/working-papers/2002/adrm/ces-wp-02-17.pdf (accessed 2020-03-01)

    work page 2002

  39. [39]

    Granular Search, Market Structure, and Wages

    Jarosch, Gregor, Jan Sebastian Nimczik, and Isaac Sorkin, 2020. Granular Search, Market Structure, and Wages . National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No. 26239, ://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w26239

    work page doi:10.3386/w26239 2020

  40. [40]

    What Happens When Wal-Mart Comes to Town: An Empirical Analysis of the Discount Retailing Industry

    Jia, Panle, 2008. What Happens When Wal-Mart Comes to Town: An Empirical Analysis of the Discount Retailing Industry . Econometrica 76(6):1263--1316, ://dx.doi.org/10.3982/ECTA6649

    work page doi:10.3982/ecta6649 2008

  41. [41]

    Big-Box Store Expansion and Consumer Welfare

    Leung, Justin and Zhonglin Li, 2022. Big-Box Store Expansion and Consumer Welfare . ://drive.google.com/file/d/1qXZHcAwREzDlsZNp5w3EVsOZnqjBnEA1

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    Rising Retail Concentration: Superstar Firms and Household Demand

    Leung, Justin and Zhonglin Li, 2023. Rising Retail Concentration: Superstar Firms and Household Demand . ://drive.google.com/file/d/1LfmztMkSl7nKJYgzR3wjxk9P90Y072Vx

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    Labor Market Concentration Does Not Explain the Falling Labor Share

    Lipsius, Ben, 2018. Labor Market Concentration Does Not Explain the Falling Labor Share . ://ideas.repec.org/p/jmp/jm2018/pli1202.html (accessed 2019-09-23)

    work page 2018

  44. [44]

    Klimek, and R

    Miranda, Javier, Shawn D. Klimek, and R. Jarmin, 2004. Firm Entry and Exit in the U.S. Retail Sector, 1977-1997. Center for Economic Studies, Discussion Papers 04-17, U.S. Census Bureau. ://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2004/CES-WP-04-17.pdf

    work page 2004

  45. [45]

    Vavra, 2020

    Neiman, Brent and Joseph S. Vavra, 2020. The Rise of Niche Consumption . National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series No 26134, ://dx.doi.org/10.3386/w26134

    work page doi:10.3386/w26134 2020

  46. [46]

    Labor Market Concentration, Earnings, and Inequality

    Rinz, Kevin, 2020. Labor Market Concentration, Earnings, and Inequality. Journal of Human Resources ://dx.doi.org/10.3368/jhr.monopsony.0219-10025R1

    work page doi:10.3368/jhr.monopsony.0219-10025r1 2020

  47. [47]

    Diverging trends in national and local concentration

    Rossi-Hansberg, Esteban, Pierre-Daniel Sarte, and Nicholas Trachter, 2021. Diverging trends in national and local concentration. NBER Macroeconomics Annual 35(1):115--150, ://dx.doi.org/10.1086/712317

    work page doi:10.1086/712317 2021

  48. [48]

    Walmart Inc

    Securities and Exchange Commission , 2020. Walmart Inc. EDGAR Results . ://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000104169&owner=exclude&count=40&hidefilings=0 (accessed 2020-01-31)

    work page 2020

  49. [49]

    Firm Scope and the Value of One-Stop Shopping in Washington State's Deregulated Liquor Market

    Seo, Boyoung, 2019. Firm Scope and the Value of One-Stop Shopping in Washington State's Deregulated Liquor Market . ://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/cbm.1988 (accessed 2021-09)

    work page doi:10.1002/cbm.1988 2019

  50. [50]

    Concentration and Foreign Sourcing in the U.S

    Smith, Dominic, 2019. Concentration and Foreign Sourcing in the U.S. Retail Sector . ://dominic-smith.com/smith_jmp2.pdf (accessed 2021-03)

    work page 2019

  51. [51]

    The Theory of Industrial Organization

    Tirole, Jean, 1988. The Theory of Industrial Organization. ://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262200714/the-theory-of-industrial-organization/

    work page arXiv 1988

  52. [52]

    The Evolution of U.S. Retail Concentration

    Trachter, Nicholas, 2021. Discussion of "The Evolution of U.S. Retail Concentration" . NBER CRIW Summer Institute

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    Is Aggregate Market Power Increasing? Production Trends Using Financial Statements

    Traina, James, 2018. Is Aggregate Market Power Increasing? Production Trends Using Financial Statements . Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State: New Working Paper Series No. 17, ://research.chicagobooth.edu/-/media/research/stigler/pdfs/workingpapers/17isaggregatemarketpowerincreasing.pdf

    work page 2018

  54. [54]

    Bureau of Labor Statistics , 1982-2012

    U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics , 1982-2012. Consumer Price Index Deflators. ://www.bls.gov/cpi/ (accessed 2020-01-01)

    work page 1982

  55. [55]

    Census Bureau , 1992-2012

    U.S. Census Bureau , 1992-2012. Census of Retail Trade - Base and Lines Files. ://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/ces/data/restricted-use-data/economic-data.html (accessed 2020-03-01). Federal Statistical Research Data Center [distributor]

    work page 1992

  56. [56]

    Census Bureau , 1993-2012

    U.S. Census Bureau , 1993-2012. Annual Retail Trade Survey. ://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/arts/data/tables.html (accessed 2020-03-01)

    work page 1993

  57. [57]

    Census Bureau , 2002

    U.S. Census Bureau , 2002. Census of Retail Trade - Public Files. ://www.census.gov/library/publications/2002/econ/census/retail-trade.html (accessed 2020-04-01)

    work page 2002