> "Standard academic economics analysis is indifferent wether
[sic] the producer or consumer gets the profits..."
that's an objective-sounding position to take, but it's certainly not, even from a purely detached, academic perspective. in most situations, consumer surplus is better for a market and for the overall economy, because it provides more choice points for more efficient allocation. in the unfortunately rare case of a relatively fair and competitive market, producer surplus can be a net good, making the overall market and economy more efficient, but in practice, companies have shown time and again to be pretty poor allocators of capital because they necessarily take fewer bets with larger amassed asset pools. however, economists generally (implicitly) assume a priori that markets are relatively fair and competitive in their analyses (akin to assuming frictionless infinite planes).
all that's to say, size does matter, negatively beyond some optimal point on the economies of scale/scope curves. as such, markets are at their best when populated primarily by small- to medium-sized companies, with no artificial barriers to new entrants (e.g., not the airline industry).
no matter the 'prestigiousness' of the journal, seemingly small (implicit) assumptions like this that can have huge implications on results necessitates skepticism toward academic economics.