IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ijecbs/v17y2010i1p9-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Structure Versus Conduct - A Comparison of the National Merger Remedies Practice in Seven European Countries

Author

Listed:
  • Thomas Hoehn

Abstract

This paper provides a comparative analysis of 234 national merger remedies decisions in the six major EU countries plus one non-EU country, Switzerland. While structural remedies tend to dominate, there are significant differences between countries and sectors. Overall, the analysis reveals a complex interaction between the features of markets which may give rise to competition concerns, the scope for remedial solutions and, not least, the extent of structural interventions in well established antitrust jurisdictions. In the wholesale and retail sector, shop and outlet divestitures are classic. However, they are often accompanied by behavioural remedies that seek to remedy vertical competition issues. In contrast, there is a preference for behavioural remedies in the network and infrastructure industries, with access remedies prominent as the case study of the information and communications sector shows.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas Hoehn, 2010. "Structure Versus Conduct - A Comparison of the National Merger Remedies Practice in Seven European Countries," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 9-32.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:ijecbs:v:17:y:2010:i:1:p:9-32
    DOI: 10.1080/13571510903516938
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/13571510903516938
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/13571510903516938?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Tomaso Duso & Klaus Gugler & Burcin Yurtoglu, 2005. "EU Merger Remedies: A Preliminary Empirical Assessment," CIG Working Papers SP II 2005-16, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Svetlana Avdasheva & Svetlana Golovanova, 2017. "Oil explains all: desirable organisation of the Russian fuel markets (on the data of three waves of antitrust cases against oil companies)," Post-Communist Economies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 29(2), pages 198-215, April.
    2. John K. Ashton, 2012. "Do Depositors Benefit from Bank Mergers? An Examination of the UK Deposit Market," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(1), pages 1-23, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Patrice Bougette & Stéphane Turolla, 2006. "Merger Remedies at the European Commission: A Multinomial Logit Analysis," Post-Print halshs-00466603, HAL.
    2. Pedro Barros & Joseph Clougherty & Jo Seldeslachts, 2010. "How to Measure the Deterrence Effects of Merger Policy: Frequency or Composition?," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 1-8.
    3. Patrice Bougette & Stéphane Turolla, 2008. "Market structures, political surroundings, and merger remedies: an empirical investigation of the EC’s decisions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 125-150, April.
    4. Joseph A. Clougherty & Tomaso Duso, 2009. "The Impact of Horizontal Mergers on Rivals: Gains to Being Left Outside a Merger," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(8), pages 1365-1395, December.
    5. Seldeslachts, Jo & Barros, Pedro & Clougherty, Joseph A., 2007. "Remedy for Now but Prohibit for Tomorrow: The Deterrence Effects of Merger Policy Tools," CEPR Discussion Papers 6437, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Thibaud Vergé, 2010. "Horizontal Mergers, Structural Remedies, And Consumer Welfare In A Cournot Oligopoly With Assets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 723-741, December.
    7. Duso, Tomaso & Gugler, Klaus & Yurtoglu, Burcin, 2010. "Is the event study methodology useful for merger analysis? A comparison of stock market and accounting data," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 186-192, June.
    8. Paolo Buccirossi & Lorenzo Ciari & Tomaso Duso & Sven-Olof Fridolfsson & Giancarlo Spagnolo & Cristiana Vitale, 2008. "A Short Overview of a Methodology for the Ex-Post Review of Merger Control Decisions," De Economist, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 453-475, December.
    9. Wayne-Roy Gayle & Robert Marshall & Leslie Marx & Jean-François Richard, 2011. "Coordinated Effects in the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 39(1), pages 39-56, August.
    10. Bernhardt, Lea, 2020. "Common factors of withdrawn and prohibited mergers in the European Union," Working Paper 184/2020, Helmut Schmidt University, Hamburg.
    11. Goran Serdareviæ & Petr Teplý, 2011. "The Efficiency of EU Merger Control During the Period 1990–2008," Czech Journal of Economics and Finance (Finance a uver), Charles University Prague, Faculty of Social Sciences, vol. 61(3), pages 252-276, July.
    12. Gregory Werden, 2008. "Assessing the Effects of Antitrust Enforcement in the United States," De Economist, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 433-451, December.
    13. Panagiotis Fotis & Michael Polemis & Nikolaos Zevgolis, 2011. "Robust Event Studies for Derogation from Suspension of Concentrations in Greece during the Period 1995–2008," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 11(1), pages 67-89, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:ijecbs:v:17:y:2010:i:1:p:9-32. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CIJB20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.