{"title":"Cartel issues in plain sight","authors":"William E. Kovacic, Robert C. Marshall, M. Meurer","doi":"10.1093/jaenfo/jnad019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnad019","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44870061","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Enforcement of US antitrust law in labour markets","authors":"E. Posner","doi":"10.1093/jaenfo/jnad020","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnad020","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42130060","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Global competition law turbulence: some consequences for US antitrust","authors":"D. Gerber","doi":"10.1093/jaenfo/jnad018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnad018","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41828473","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Methodological and normative elements of the new antitrust","authors":"Sanjukta Paul","doi":"10.1093/jaenfo/jnad016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnad016","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47732274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Looking backwards to move forwards: The role of history in current US antitrust enforcement?","authors":"R. Brandenburger, Jill Ottenberg","doi":"10.1093/jaenfo/jnad007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnad007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":42471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49650826","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This article analyses three routes for the formation of market-opening rules: competition enforcement, legislative rulemaking, and market investigation. Using examples and case studies related to facilitating market access in banking and payment systems, we illustrate essential features and limitations of the different modes of rulemaking. The interrelation between them is explored, emphasizing the merits of having them available in parallel.
{"title":"Competition enforcement versus regulation as market-opening tools: an application to banking and payment systems","authors":"J. Franck","doi":"10.1093/jaenfo/jnad010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnad010","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 This article analyses three routes for the formation of market-opening rules: competition enforcement, legislative rulemaking, and market investigation. Using examples and case studies related to facilitating market access in banking and payment systems, we illustrate essential features and limitations of the different modes of rulemaking. The interrelation between them is explored, emphasizing the merits of having them available in parallel.","PeriodicalId":42471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48980395","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
M. Jugl, William A M Pagel, Maria Camilla Garcia Jimenez, Jean Pierre Salendres, Will Lowe, Helena Malikova, Joanna J. Bryson
Regulation plays a central role in modern governance; yet, we have limited knowledge of how subjects of regulation—particularly, private actors—act in the face of potentially adverse regulatory decisions. Here, we document and examine a novel lobbying strategy in the context of competition regulation, a strategy that exploits the regulator’s finite administrative capacities. Companies with merger cases under scrutiny by the European Commission’s Directorate General for Competition appear to be employing a strategy of ‘spamming the regulator,’ through the strategic and cumulative submission of economic expert assessments. Procedural pressures may result in an undeservedly favourable assessment of the merger. Based on quantitative and qualitative analyses of an original dataset of all complex merger cases in the European Union 2005–2020, we present evidence of this new strategy and a possible learning process among private actors. We suggest remedies to ensure regulatory effectiveness in the face of this novel strategy.
监管在现代治理中发挥着核心作用;然而，我们对监管主体——尤其是私人行为体——在面对潜在的不利监管决定时如何行动的了解有限。在这里，我们记录并研究了竞争监管背景下的一种新的游说策略，这种策略利用了监管机构有限的行政能力。欧盟委员会(European Commission)竞争总局(Directorate General for Competition)正在审查并购案件的公司，似乎采用了一种“向监管机构发送垃圾邮件”的策略，即通过战略性地、累积地提交经济专家评估报告。程序上的压力可能导致对合并进行不应有的有利评估。基于对欧盟2005-2020年所有复杂并购案例的原始数据集的定量和定性分析，我们提出了这一新战略的证据，以及私营行为体之间可能的学习过程。我们建议补救措施，以确保监管有效性，面对这种新的战略。
{"title":"Spamming the regulator: exploring a new lobbying strategy in EU competition procedures","authors":"M. Jugl, William A M Pagel, Maria Camilla Garcia Jimenez, Jean Pierre Salendres, Will Lowe, Helena Malikova, Joanna J. Bryson","doi":"10.1093/jaenfo/jnad009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnad009","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 Regulation plays a central role in modern governance; yet, we have limited knowledge of how subjects of regulation—particularly, private actors—act in the face of potentially adverse regulatory decisions. Here, we document and examine a novel lobbying strategy in the context of competition regulation, a strategy that exploits the regulator’s finite administrative capacities. Companies with merger cases under scrutiny by the European Commission’s Directorate General for Competition appear to be employing a strategy of ‘spamming the regulator,’ through the strategic and cumulative submission of economic expert assessments. Procedural pressures may result in an undeservedly favourable assessment of the merger. Based on quantitative and qualitative analyses of an original dataset of all complex merger cases in the European Union 2005–2020, we present evidence of this new strategy and a possible learning process among private actors. We suggest remedies to ensure regulatory effectiveness in the face of this novel strategy.","PeriodicalId":42471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41782315","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The exercise of unlawful monopsony power by buyer cartels depresses both the price paid and the quantity purchased. Consequently, producer surplus and social welfare decline from competitive levels. There are six classes of antitrust victims, but only one has standing to sue for antitrust damages in the United States. The other five are neglected. We identify the neglected victims in this article. We also suggest some ways to expand the protection offered by section 4 of the Clayton Act.
{"title":"The antitrust victims of monopsony","authors":"","doi":"10.1093/jaenfo/jnad008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnad008","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The exercise of unlawful monopsony power by buyer cartels depresses both the price paid and the quantity purchased. Consequently, producer surplus and social welfare decline from competitive levels. There are six classes of antitrust victims, but only one has standing to sue for antitrust damages in the United States. The other five are neglected. We identify the neglected victims in this article. We also suggest some ways to expand the protection offered by section 4 of the Clayton Act.","PeriodicalId":42471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43010166","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Abstract This is a time of passionate debate on the fundamental goals of competition law. Should there be a single overarching goal for all competition law and policy? Should that goal be framed in purely economic terms? Should antitrust focus on protecting the competitive process, preventing unfair market conduct, or the abuse of superior bargaining position? Should antitrust promote and protect democracy, address social and racial injustice, or address climate change and sustainability? How should multiple goals be administered, weighed, and traded off in enforcement priorities and litigation? There is a progressive turn in the USA at the moment. But regardless of the nature and direction of the desired change, there is the equally important issue of how to achieve lasting change that survives the inevitable change in enforcement personnel and political leaders over time. In this essay, I focus on how to achieve that lasting change regardless of the goals and direction of change that any particular jurisdiction seeks to adopt. Most of the specific examples come from current developments in the USA, but are illustrative of the process of lasting change in competition. Enforcement agencies are key players in this process, but are constrained by the constitutions, treaties, legislation, and court decisions of their jurisdictions. Any campaign for change therefore depends on the wise use of the full substantive and procedural powers assigned to them by the political branches of the government. Successfully achieving substantial change rarely happens by accident, and most often requires a combination of such factors as: (i) creatively using the full statutory powers assigned to the agencies, (ii) striving for a unified whole-of-government approach to competition policy and (iii) deeply engaging the general public.
{"title":"Lasting change in competition law and policy","authors":"Spencer Weber Waller","doi":"10.1093/jaenfo/jnad006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnad006","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This is a time of passionate debate on the fundamental goals of competition law. Should there be a single overarching goal for all competition law and policy? Should that goal be framed in purely economic terms? Should antitrust focus on protecting the competitive process, preventing unfair market conduct, or the abuse of superior bargaining position? Should antitrust promote and protect democracy, address social and racial injustice, or address climate change and sustainability? How should multiple goals be administered, weighed, and traded off in enforcement priorities and litigation? There is a progressive turn in the USA at the moment. But regardless of the nature and direction of the desired change, there is the equally important issue of how to achieve lasting change that survives the inevitable change in enforcement personnel and political leaders over time. In this essay, I focus on how to achieve that lasting change regardless of the goals and direction of change that any particular jurisdiction seeks to adopt. Most of the specific examples come from current developments in the USA, but are illustrative of the process of lasting change in competition. Enforcement agencies are key players in this process, but are constrained by the constitutions, treaties, legislation, and court decisions of their jurisdictions. Any campaign for change therefore depends on the wise use of the full substantive and procedural powers assigned to them by the political branches of the government. Successfully achieving substantial change rarely happens by accident, and most often requires a combination of such factors as: (i) creatively using the full statutory powers assigned to the agencies, (ii) striving for a unified whole-of-government approach to competition policy and (iii) deeply engaging the general public.","PeriodicalId":42471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"135465454","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The European Union (EU) Commission proposes to ‘green up’ its enforcement of Article 101(3) TFEU to allow producers to collectively overcome so-called first mover disadvantages that would result from inefficient market regulation. The Commission's reboot focuses on the last three exemption conditions. First, the consumer benefit condition is customized to use collective consumer benefits to determine whether consumers receive a ‘fair share’ of the benefits established under the efficiency condition. Here, the Commission bypasses the Dutch proposition to also take account of non-consumer benefits when investigating whether consumers are compensated for anticompetitive harm. Second, the indispensability condition is tasked to filter out greenwashing. Third, the residual competition condition is trusted to allow private collective action insofar it does not eliminate competition on price and/or innovation. Discussing both EU and Dutch proposals, this article finds that greening up Article 101(3) brings competition policy outside the limiting principles that define objective and effective competition enforcement in terms of voluntary exchange.
{"title":"EU antitrust in support of the Green Deal. Why better is not good enough","authors":"E.M.H. Loozen","doi":"10.1093/jaenfo/jnad005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnad005","url":null,"abstract":"\u0000 The European Union (EU) Commission proposes to ‘green up’ its enforcement of Article 101(3) TFEU to allow producers to collectively overcome so-called first mover disadvantages that would result from inefficient market regulation. The Commission's reboot focuses on the last three exemption conditions. First, the consumer benefit condition is customized to use collective consumer benefits to determine whether consumers receive a ‘fair share’ of the benefits established under the efficiency condition. Here, the Commission bypasses the Dutch proposition to also take account of non-consumer benefits when investigating whether consumers are compensated for anticompetitive harm. Second, the indispensability condition is tasked to filter out greenwashing. Third, the residual competition condition is trusted to allow private collective action insofar it does not eliminate competition on price and/or innovation. Discussing both EU and Dutch proposals, this article finds that greening up Article 101(3) brings competition policy outside the limiting principles that define objective and effective competition enforcement in terms of voluntary exchange.","PeriodicalId":42471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2023-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41595550","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：