Competition Economics and Antitrust in Europe

D. Neven
{"title":"Competition Economics and Antitrust in Europe","authors":"D. Neven","doi":"10.1111/j.1468-0327.2006.00170.x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"type=\"main\" xml:lang=\"en\"> This paper aims to assess the influence that economic analysis has had on competition policy in the European Union over the last twenty years. Economists are increasingly used in antitrust cases; the annual turnover of the main economic consultancy firms has increased by a factor of 20 since the early 1990s and currently exceeds £20 million. This is about 15% of the aggregate fees earned on antitrust cases, a proportion close to that in the US. The economic resources mobilized by the EU Commission are, however, an order of magnitude smaller and this imbalance is a source of concern. The legal framework and the case decisions have also been influenced by economic analysis in important ways. For instance, the analysis of agreements between firms has increasingly focused on effects; the analysis of the factors that determine effective competition has become more sophisticated; the concept of collective dominance has been progressively developed in terms of the theory of collusion in repeated interactions, and quantitative methods have become more important. However, enforcement has sometimes appealed to economic reasoning in flawed or speculative ways; the paper discusses procedural reasons why this may have occurred. This paper assesses the system of evidence gathering implemented by the Commission in the light of the law and economics literature. It is concluded that while the reforms recently implemented by the Commission do address the main weaknesses of this system, they may still not allow for the most effective development of economic theory and evidence in actual cases. — Damien J. Neven","PeriodicalId":236508,"journal":{"name":"Wiley-Blackwell: Economic Policy","volume":"201 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"113","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiley-Blackwell: Economic Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0327.2006.00170.x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 113

Abstract

type="main" xml:lang="en"> This paper aims to assess the influence that economic analysis has had on competition policy in the European Union over the last twenty years. Economists are increasingly used in antitrust cases; the annual turnover of the main economic consultancy firms has increased by a factor of 20 since the early 1990s and currently exceeds £20 million. This is about 15% of the aggregate fees earned on antitrust cases, a proportion close to that in the US. The economic resources mobilized by the EU Commission are, however, an order of magnitude smaller and this imbalance is a source of concern. The legal framework and the case decisions have also been influenced by economic analysis in important ways. For instance, the analysis of agreements between firms has increasingly focused on effects; the analysis of the factors that determine effective competition has become more sophisticated; the concept of collective dominance has been progressively developed in terms of the theory of collusion in repeated interactions, and quantitative methods have become more important. However, enforcement has sometimes appealed to economic reasoning in flawed or speculative ways; the paper discusses procedural reasons why this may have occurred. This paper assesses the system of evidence gathering implemented by the Commission in the light of the law and economics literature. It is concluded that while the reforms recently implemented by the Commission do address the main weaknesses of this system, they may still not allow for the most effective development of economic theory and evidence in actual cases. — Damien J. Neven
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧洲的竞争经济学与反垄断
type="main" xml:lang="en">本文旨在评估过去20年来经济分析对欧盟竞争政策的影响。经济学家在反垄断案件中被越来越多地使用;自20世纪90年代初以来,主要经济咨询公司的年营业额增加了20倍,目前已超过2000万英镑。这一比例约为反垄断案件总费用的15%,接近美国的比例。然而,欧盟委员会调动的经济资源要小一个数量级,这种不平衡令人关切。法律框架和案件判决也在重要方面受到经济分析的影响。例如,对公司间协议的分析越来越侧重于影响;对决定有效竞争的因素的分析变得更加复杂;集体优势的概念在重复相互作用中的共谋理论中逐渐发展起来,定量方法变得更加重要。然而,执法有时以有缺陷或投机的方式诉诸经济推理;本文讨论了可能发生这种情况的程序原因。本文结合法学和经济学文献,对欧盟委员会实施的证据收集制度进行了评估。结论是,虽然委员会最近执行的改革确实解决了这一制度的主要弱点,但它们可能仍然不能在实际情况中最有效地发展经济理论和证据。——达米安·j·内文
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Unemployment at Risk: The Policy Determinants of Labour Market Exposure to Economic Shocks School and Family Effects on Educational Outcomes Across Countries Evaluating the Cost of Government Credit Support: The OECD Context Public Policy and Resource Allocation: Evidence from Firms in OECD Countries Defying Gravity: Can Japanese Sovereign Debt Continue to Increase Without a Crisis?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1