加拿大的(In)效率辩护:为什么第96条对经济效率和创新弊大于利

Matthew Chiasson, P. A. Johnson
{"title":"加拿大的(In)效率辩护:为什么第96条对经济效率和创新弊大于利","authors":"Matthew Chiasson, P. A. Johnson","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3293790","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since 1986, Canada’s Competition Act has had an “efficiencies defence” for mergers that seeks to promote economic efficiency at the expense of competition, instead of through competition. This paper questions whether that policy makes sense. We review a large body of literature and case studies demonstrating that competition spurs innovation and efficiency of enormous magnitude. However, these significant beneficial effects of competition are often overlooked because the dynamic process through which they occur is less susceptible to ex ante prediction or quantification. The perverse result, we argue, is that the Competition Act has a bias towards authorizing anticompetitive mergers in the name of economic efficiency even though such mergers are more likely to reduce efficiency overall.","PeriodicalId":302272,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Management of Technological Innovation & R&D in Developing Economies (Topic)","volume":"87 1-3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Canada’s (In)efficiency Defence: Why Section 96 May Do More Harm Than Good for Economic Efficiency and Innovation\",\"authors\":\"Matthew Chiasson, P. A. Johnson\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3293790\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Since 1986, Canada’s Competition Act has had an “efficiencies defence” for mergers that seeks to promote economic efficiency at the expense of competition, instead of through competition. This paper questions whether that policy makes sense. We review a large body of literature and case studies demonstrating that competition spurs innovation and efficiency of enormous magnitude. However, these significant beneficial effects of competition are often overlooked because the dynamic process through which they occur is less susceptible to ex ante prediction or quantification. The perverse result, we argue, is that the Competition Act has a bias towards authorizing anticompetitive mergers in the name of economic efficiency even though such mergers are more likely to reduce efficiency overall.\",\"PeriodicalId\":302272,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Management of Technological Innovation & R&D in Developing Economies (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"87 1-3 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Management of Technological Innovation & R&D in Developing Economies (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3293790\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Management of Technological Innovation & R&D in Developing Economies (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3293790","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

自1986年以来,加拿大的《竞争法》对以牺牲竞争而不是通过竞争来寻求提高经济效率的合并进行了“效率辩护”。本文质疑这一政策是否合理。我们回顾了大量的文献和案例研究,证明竞争在很大程度上刺激了创新和效率。然而,竞争的这些重要的有益影响往往被忽视,因为它们发生的动态过程不太容易事先预测或量化。我们认为,这种反常的结果是,《竞争法》倾向于以经济效率的名义授权反竞争的合并,尽管这样的合并更有可能降低整体效率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Canada’s (In)efficiency Defence: Why Section 96 May Do More Harm Than Good for Economic Efficiency and Innovation
Since 1986, Canada’s Competition Act has had an “efficiencies defence” for mergers that seeks to promote economic efficiency at the expense of competition, instead of through competition. This paper questions whether that policy makes sense. We review a large body of literature and case studies demonstrating that competition spurs innovation and efficiency of enormous magnitude. However, these significant beneficial effects of competition are often overlooked because the dynamic process through which they occur is less susceptible to ex ante prediction or quantification. The perverse result, we argue, is that the Competition Act has a bias towards authorizing anticompetitive mergers in the name of economic efficiency even though such mergers are more likely to reduce efficiency overall.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Emotions and Inventor Productivity: Evidence from Terrorist Attacks Global Supply Chains as Drivers of Innovation in China Emerging African Economies: Digital Structures, Disruptive Responses and Demographic Implications The Impact of CRM on Innovation Capabilities: A Study on Industries of Pakistan Sharing the Benefits of the Data Economy for Economic Development
×
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