Ginger Zhe Jin
Ginger Zhe Jin is a professor of economics at the University of Maryland, College Park. In 2016-2017, she was on leave while serving as director of the Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Economics. From January 2019 to May 2020, she was on leave while working as an Amazon scholar and senior principal economist at Amazon.com. Jin is currently a managing editor of the International Journal of Industrial Organization, advisory council member of Journal of Industrial Economics, and board member of Industrial Organization Society. She has been a research associate of NBER since 2012. Her research has been published in leading economics, management and marketing journals, with support from the National Science Foundation, the Net Institute, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth. Many of her works have been covered by major media outlets, including the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Forbes, Bloomberg, and Los Angeles Times. She obtained her PhD in economics from UCLA.
Antitrust and Competition
The Draft Merger Guidelines Risk Reducing Innovation
The draft Merger Guidelines seek to reduce mergers and acquisitions, especially those that remove potential entrants. However, precluding acquisitions in those settings ignores both what incentivizes startups and investors to take initial risks, as well as the advantages that large incumbents have to parlay acquisitions into further innovation and an array of widely commercialized consumer products. The overall effect may dampen innovation, write Ginger Zhe Jin, Mario Leccese, and Liad Wagman.
Latest news
Regulation
Why Have Uninsured Depositors Become De Facto Insured?
Due to a change in how the FDIC resolves failed banks, uninsured deposits have become de facto insured. Not only is this dangerous for risk in the banking system, it is not what Congress intends the FDIC to do, writes Michael Ohlrogge.
Antitrust and Competition
Merger Law Reaches Acquirer Incentives and Private Equity Strategies
Steven C. Salop argues that Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers in which the acquiring firm’s unilateral incentives and business strategy are likely to lessen market competition.
Antitrust and Competition
Tim Wu Responds to Letter by Former Agency Chief Economists
Former special assistant to the president for technology and competition policy Tim Wu responds to the November 27 letter signed by former chief economists at the Federal Trade Commission and Justice Department Antitrust Division calling for a separation of the legal and economic analysis in the draft Merger Guidelines.
Book Reviews
Can the Public Moderate Social Media?
ProMarket student editor Surya Gowda reviews the arguments made by Paul Gowder in his new book, The Networked Leviathan: For Democratic Platforms.
Income Inequality
Uninhibited Campaign Donations Risks Creating Oligarchy
In new research, Valentino Larcinese and Alberto Parmigiani find that the 1986 Reagan tax cuts led to greater campaign spending from wealthy individuals, who benefited the most from this policy. The authors argue that a very permissive system of political finance, combined with the erosion of tax progressivity, created the conditions for the mutual reinforcement of economic and political disparities. The result was an inequality spiral hardly compatible with democratic ideals.
ESG, Corporate Governance & Future of the Firm
Did the Meme Stock Revolution Actually Change Anything?
Many financial commentators thought that the surge of retail investors participating in the stock market, the most notable of whom boosted “meme stocks” like GameStop, would democratize corporate governance and improve prosocial firm behavior, including the promotion of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals. In new research, Dhruv Aggarwal, Albert H. Choi, and Yoon-Ho Alex Lee find evidence that the exact opposite took place.
Antitrust and Competition
The Kroger-Albertsons Merger Will Not Help Grocery Competition
Kroger and Albertsons say they need to merge to compete with Walmart. Claire Kelloway argues that what they really want is Walmart’s monopsony power, and permitting mergers on these grounds will only harm suppliers, workers, and consumers.
