The Deterrence Effects of U.S. Merger Policy Instruments
AbstractWe estimate the deterrence effects of U.S. merger policy instruments with respect tothe composition and frequency of future merger notifications. Data from the Annual Reports bythe U.S. DOJ and FTC allow industry based measures over the 1986-1999 period of theconditional probabilities for eliciting investigations, challenges, prohibitions, court-wins andcourt-losses: deterrence variables akin to the traditional conditional probabilities from theeconomics of crime literature. We find the challenge-rate to robustly deter future horizontal(both relative and absolute) merger activity; the investigation-rate to slightly deter relativehorizontalmerger activity; the court-loss-rate to moderately affect absolute-horizontal mergeractivity; and the prohibition-rate and court-win-rate to not significantly deter future horizontalmergers. Accordingly, the conditional probability of eliciting an antitrust challenge (i.e.,remedies and prohibitions) involves the strongest deterrence effect from amongst the differentmerger policy instruments.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Tinbergen Institute in its series Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers with number 11-095/1.
Date of creation: 15 Jul 2011
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.tinbergen.nl
antitrust; deterrence; merger policy;
Other versions of this item:
- Joseph A. Clougherty & Jo Seldeslachts, 2013. "The Deterrence Effects of US Merger Policy Instruments," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(5), pages 1114-1144, October.
- Clougherty, Joseph A. & Seldeslachts, Jo, 2011. "The Deterrence Effects of U.S. Merger Policy Instruments," CEPR Discussion Papers 8482, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General
- L49 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Other
- K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Mocan, H Naci & Gittings, R Kaj, 2003. "Getting Off Death Row: Commuted Sentences and the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 46(2), pages 453-78, October.
- Eckbo, B Espen & Wier, Peggy, 1985. "Antimerger Policy under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act: A Reexamination of the Market Power Hypothesis," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 119-49, April.
- Dale Cloninger & Roberto Marchesini, 2006. "Execution moratoriums, commutations and deterrence: the case of Illinois," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(9), pages 967-973.
- Andrade, Gregor & Stafford, Erik, 2004. "Investigating the economic role of mergers," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 1-36, January.
- Doern, G. Bruce & Wilks, Stephen (ed.), 1996. "Comparative Competition Policy: National Institutions in a Global Market," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198280620, October.
- Cameron, Samuel, 1994. "A review of the econometric evidence on the effects of capital punishment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 23(1-2), pages 197-214.
- Hashem Dezhbakhsh & Paul H. Rubin & Joanna M. Shepherd, 2003. "Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 344-376, August.
- Donohue III, John J. & Wolfers, Justin, 2006.
"Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate,"
IZA Discussion Papers
1949, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
- John J. Donohue III & Justin Wolfers, 2006. "Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate," NBER Working Papers 11982, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Donohue, John J & Wolfers, Justin, 2006. "Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate," CEPR Discussion Papers 5493, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Cameron, Samuel, 1988. "The Economics of Crime Deterrence: A Survey of Theory and Evidence," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 301-23.
- Jo Seldeslachts & Joseph A. Clougherty & Pedro Pita Barros, 2009. "Settle for Now but Block for Tomorrow: The Deterrence Effects of Merger Policy Tools," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(3), pages 607-634, 08.
- Albert Banal‐Estañol & Paul Heidhues & Rainer Nitsche & Jo Seldeslachts, 2010.
"Screening And Merger Activity,"
Journal of Industrial Economics,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 794-817, December.
- Banal-Estanol, Albert & Heidhues, Paul & Nitsche, Rainer & Seldeslachts, Jo, 2009. "Screening and Merger Activity," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 270, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
- Paul R. Zimmerman, 2006. "The Deterrent Effect of Alternative Execution Methods," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(4), pages 909-941, October.
- Eckbo, B Espen, 1992. " Mergers and the Value of Antitrust Deterrence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(3), pages 1005-29, July.
- Long, William F & Schramm, Richard & Tollison, Robert D, 1973. "The Economic Determinants of Antitrust Activity," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(2), pages 351-64, October.
- Paul R. Zimmerman, 2009. "Statistical Variability and the Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 370-398.
- Golbe, Devra L & White, Lawrence J, 1993. "Catch a Wave: The Time Series Behavior of Mergers," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 75(3), pages 493-99, August.
- Wey, Christian & Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus, 2013.
"The Effects of Remedies on Merger Activity in Oligopoly,"
Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order
79888, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
- Dertwinkel-Kalt, Markus & Wey, Christian, 2012. "The effects of remedies on merger activity in oligopoly," DICE Discussion Papers 81, Heinrich‐Heine‐Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
- Andreea Cosnita-Langlais & Lars Sørgard, 2014.
"Enforcement vs Deterrence in Merger Control: Can Remedies Lead to Lower Welfare?,"
EconomiX Working Papers
2014-29, University of Paris West - Nanterre la Défense, EconomiX.
- Cosnita-Langlais, Andreea & Sørgard, Lars, 2014. "Enforcement vs Deterrence in Merger Control: Can Remedies Lead to Lower Welfare?," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 7/2014, Department of Economics, Norwegian School of Economics.
- Orley C. Ashenfelter & Daniel Hosken & Matthew C. Weinberg, 2014. "Did Robert Bork Understate the Competitive Impact of Mergers? Evidence from Consummated Mergers," NBER Working Papers 19939, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Antoine Maartens (+31 626 - 160 892)).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.