Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Competition Policy with Optimally Differentiated Rules Instead of "Per se Rules vs. Rule of Reason"

Contents:

Author Info

  • Arndt Christiansen and Wolfgang Kerber

    ()
    (Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Philipps Universitaet Marburg)

  • Wolfgang Kerber

    ()
    (Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Philipps Universitaet Marburg)

Abstract

Abstract: Both in US antitrust and EU competition policy a development to a broader appli-cation of rule of reason instead of per se rules can be observed. In the European discussion the attempt to base competition policy on a "more economic approach" is mainly viewed as im-proving the economic analysis in the assessment of specific cases. In this paper it is shown from a general law and economics perspective that the application of rules instead of focus-sing on case-by-case analyses can have many advantages (less regulation costs, rent seeking and knowledge problems), although an additional differentiation of rules through a deeper assessment can also have advantages in regard to the reduction of decision errors of type I and II. After introducing the notion of a continuum of more or less differentiated rules, we show - based upon law and economics literature upon the optimal complexity of rules - in a simple model that a competition rule is optimally differentiated, if the marginal reduction of the sum of error costs (as the marginal benefit of differentiation) equals the marginal costs of differen-tiation. This model also allows for a more detailed analysis of the most important determi-nants of the optimal degree of rule-differentia¬tion. From this law and economics perspective, competition policy should consist mainly of (more or less differentiated) rules and should only rarely rely on case-by-case analysis. Therefore the main task of a "more economic ap-proach" is to use economics for the formulation of appropriate competition rules.

Download Info

If 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.
File URL: http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb02/makro/forschung/gelbereihe/artikel/2006-06_Christiansen-Kerber.pdf
File Function: First version, 2006
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung) in its series Marburg Working Papers on Economics with number 200606.

as in new window
Length: 26 pages
Date of creation: 2006
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:mar:volksw:200606

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Universitätsstraße 25, 35037 Marburg
Phone: 06421/28-1722
Fax: 06421/28-4858
Email:
Web page: http://www.uni-marburg.de/fb02/
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Competition Policy; European Competition Law; Rule of Reason;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
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.:
as in new window
  1. Lando, Henrik & Shavell, Steven, 2004. "The advantage of focusing law enforcement effort," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(2), pages 209-218, June.
  2. Brunnetti, Aymo & Kisunko, Gregory & Weder, Beatrice, 1997. "Credibility of rules and economic growth : evidence from a worldwide survey of the private sector," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1760, The World Bank.
  3. Paul G. Mahoney & Chris William Sanchirico, 2005. "General and Specific Legal Rules," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 161(2), pages 329-, June.
  4. Besanko, David & Spulber, Daniel F, 1989. "Antitrust Enforcement under Asymmetric Information," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(396), pages 408-25, June.
  5. Ben-Porath Elchanan, 1993. "Repeated Games with Finite Automata," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 17-32, February.
  6. Polinsky, A Mitchell & Shavell, Steven, 1989. "Legal Error, Litigation, and the Incentive to Obey the Law," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 99-108, Spring.
  7. Isaac Ehrlich & Richard A. Posner, 1974. "An Economic Analysis of Legal Rulemaking," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 3(1), pages 257-286, January.
  8. Casey B. Mulligan & Andrei Shleifer, 2005. "The Extent of the Market and the Supply of Regulation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 120(4), pages 1445-1473, November.
  9. Kaplow, Louis, 1995. "A Model of the Optimal Complexity of Legal Rules," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 150-63, April.
  10. Kalai, Ehud & Stanford, William, 1988. "Finite Rationality and Interpersonal Complexity in Repeated Games," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(2), pages 397-410, March.
  11. STEPHEN WILKS & LEE McGOWAN, 1995. "Disarming the Commission: The Debate over a European Cartel Office," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(2), pages 259-273, 06.
  12. Paul L. Joskow, 2002. "Transaction Cost Economics, Antitrust Rules, and Remedies," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 95-116, April.
  13. Faith, Roger L & Leavens, Donald R & Tollison, Robert D, 1982. "Antitrust Pork Barrel," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25(2), pages 329-42, October.
  14. Motta,Massimo, 2004. "Competition Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521016919, October.
  15. Besanko, David & Spulber, Daniel F, 1993. "Contested Mergers and Equilibrium Antitrust Policy," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 1-29, April.
  16. Ogus, Anthony, 1992. "Information, error costs and regulation," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(4), pages 411-421, December.
  17. Mahoney, Paul G, 2001. "The Common Law and Economic Growth: Hayek Might Be Right," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(2), pages 503-25, Part I Ju.
  18. Ronald Heiner, 1990. "Rule-governed behavior in evolution and human society," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 19-46, December.
  19. Baumol, William J & Ordover, Janusz A, 1985. "Use of Antitrust to Subvert Competition," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(2), pages 247-65, May.
  20. John Vickers, 2005. "Abuse of Market Power," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 115(504), pages F244-F261, 06.
  21. Damien Neven, 2002. "Discrepancies Between Markets and Regulators: an Analysis of the First ten Years of EU Merger Control," IHEID Working Papers 10-2002, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies.
  22. Brennan,Geoffrey & Buchanan,James M., 2008. "The Reason of Rules," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521070904, October.
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 in new window

Cited by:
  1. Oliver Budzinski, 2010. "An Institutional Analysis of the Enforcement Problems in Merger Control," Working Papers 101/10, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Environmental and Business Economics.
  2. Arndt Christiansen, 2006. "The "more economic approach" in EU merger control," CESifo Forum, Ifo Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 7(1), pages 34-39, 04.
  3. Benjamin Rene Kern & Juan Manuel Mantilla Contreras, 2014. "Mergers and the Incentives to Undertake Product Innovation Oriented R&D: First Steps Towards an Assessment Approach," MAGKS Papers on Economics 201417, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
  4. Budzinski, Oliver & Haji Ali Beigi, Maryam, 2013. "Competition policy agendas for industrializing countries," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 81, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
  5. Jarig Sinderen & Ron Kemp, 2008. "The Economic Effect Of Competition Law Enforcement: The Case Of The Netherlands," De Economist, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 365-385, December.
  6. Haucap, Justus, 2010. "Eingeschränkte Rationalität in der Wettbewerbsökonomie," DICE Ordnungspolitische Perspektiven 08, Heinrich‐Heine‐Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
  7. Vanberg, Viktor J., 2009. "Consumer welfare, total welfare and economic freedom: on the normative foundations of competition policy," Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics 09/3, Walter Eucken Institut e.V..
  8. Török, Ádám, 2011. "A dominanciaproblémák tényeinek értelmezése és a közgazdaság-tudományi módszertan
    [Interpretation of the facts of dominance problems and the methodology of economics]
    ," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 41-55.
  9. Yannis Katsoulacos & David Ulph, 2008. "On Optimal Legal Standards for Competition Policy: A General Welfare-Based Analysis," Discussion Paper Series, Department of Economics 200812, Department of Economics, University of St. Andrews.
  10. Henk Don & Ron Kemp & Jarig Sinderen, 2008. "Measuring the Economic Effects of Competition Law Enforcement," De Economist, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 341-348, December.
  11. Caroline Elliott & Melinda Acutt, 2007. "Antitrust Policy: The Impact of Revenue Penalties on Price," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-8, March.
  12. Rajabiun, Reza & Middleton, Catherine, 2013. "Regulation, investment and efficiency in the transition to next generation networks: Evidence from the European Union," 24th European Regional ITS Conference, Florence 2013 88536, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
  13. Budzinski, Oliver, 2012. "Würde eine unabhängige europäische Wettbewerbsbehörde eine bessere Wettbewerbspolitik machen?," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 78, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
  14. Budzinski, Oliver & Christiansen, Arndt, 2007. "The Oracle/PeopleSoft case: unilateral effects, simulation models and econometrics in contemporary merger control," IBES Diskussionsbeiträge 157, University of Duisburg-Essen, Faculty for Economics and Business Administration.
  15. Schmidtchen, Dieter, 2006. "Wettbewerbsschutz durch regelgeleitete Wettbewerbspolitik: Anmerkungen zum institutionenökonomisch-evolutionären Wettbewerbsleitbild," CSLE Discussion Paper Series 2006-10, Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics.
  16. Justus Haucap, 2008. "Whinston, M. D.: Lectures on Antitrust Economics (Cairoli Lecture Series)," Journal of Economics, Springer, vol. 93(3), pages 305-311, 04.
  17. Oliver Budzinski, 2009. "Modern Industrial Economics and Competition Policy: Open Problems and Possible Limits," Working Papers 93/09, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Environmental and Business Economics.
  18. Caroline Elliott & Melinda Acutt, 2007. "Antitrust Policy: The Impact of Revenue Penalties on Price," Experimental Economics, Springer, vol. 7(1), pages 1-8, March.
  19. Schmidtchen, Dieter, 2006. "Wettbewerbsfreiheit, Per se Verbote und die Rule of Reason: Anmerkungen zum institutionenökonomisch-evolutionären Wettbewerbsleitbild," CSLE Discussion Paper Series 2006-04, Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics.
  20. Dieter Schmidtchen, . "Wettbewerbsfreiheit, Per se Verbote und die Rule of Reason – Anmerkungen zum institutionenökonomisch-evolutionären Wettbewerbsleitbild
    Freedom to compete, per se rules and the rule of reason
    ," German Working Papers in Law and Economics 2006-1-1159, Berkeley Electronic Press.
  21. Christiansen, Arndt, 2005. "Der "more economic approach" in der EU-Fusionskontrolle - eine kritische Würdigung," Research Notes 21, Deutsche Bank Research.
  22. Oliver Budzinski & Isabel Ruhmer, 2008. "Merger Simulation in Competition Policy: A Survey," MAGKS Papers on Economics 200807, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:mar:volksw:200606. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bernd Hayo).

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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