On the effective design of the efficiency defence
AbstractThe efficiency defence was long delayed in the European merger control due to costly implementation issues. In this paper we argue that the upstream consequences of the efficiency defence should equally be considered, namely the improvement of the distribution of notified mergers through the incentives it provides towards more efficient mergers. First of all, we show that even if the Competition Authority may not tell apart the mergers that rightfully invoke the efficiency defence from those that do not, allowing such a procedure can lead to a lower post-merger price. Secondly, we study the impact of merger remedies on the incentives conveyed by the efficiency defence, and conclude on the optimal design of the efficiency defence procedure.
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 Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1) in its series Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques with number v06030.
Length: 21 pages
Date of creation: Apr 2006
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 106 - 112 boulevard de l'Hôpital, 75647 Paris cedex 13
Phone: 01 44 07 81 00
Fax: 01 44 07 81 09
Web page: http://mse.univ-paris1.fr/
More information through EDIRC
Merger control; efficiency defence; merger remedies.;
Other versions of this item:
- Andreea Cosnita & Jean-Philippe Tropeano, 2006. "On the Effective Design of the Efficiency Defence," UniversitÃ© Paris1 PanthÃ©on-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00113503, HAL.
- L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices
- K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
- D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2006-05-20 (All new papers)
- NEP-COM-2006-05-20 (Industrial Competition)
- NEP-LAW-2006-05-20 (Law & Economics)
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.:
- 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.
- Lagerlof, Johan N.M. & Heidhues, Paul, 2005.
"On the desirability of an efficiency defense in merger control,"
International Journal of Industrial Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 803-827, December.
- Heidhues, Paul & Lagerlöf, Johan N.M., 2003. "On the Desirability of an Efficiency Defense in Merger Control," CEPR Discussion Papers 3841, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Johan N. M. Lagerlöf & Paul Heidhues, 2004. "On the Desirability of an Efficiency Defense in Merger Control," Royal Holloway, University of London: Discussion Papers in Economics 04/24, Department of Economics, Royal Holloway University of London, revised Oct 2004.
- Johan Lagerlöf & Paul Heidhues, 2002. "On the Desirability of an Efficiency Defense in Merger Control," CIG Working Papers FS IV 02-08, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
- Loss, Frederic & Malavolti-Grimal, Estelle & Verge, Thibaud & Berges-Sennou, Fabian, 2008.
"European competition policy modernization: From notifications to legal exception,"
European Economic Review,
Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 77-98, January.
- Frédéric Loss & Estelle Malavolti-Grimal & Thibaud Vergé & Fabian Bergès-Sennou, 2005. "European Competition Policy Modernization : From Notifications to Legal Exception," Working Papers 2005-38, Centre de Recherche en Economie et Statistique.
- Bergès, Fabian & Loss, Frédéric & Malavolti, Estelle & Vergé, Thibaud, 2008. "European Competition Policy Modernization: From Notification to Legal Exception," Open Access publications from University of Toulouse 1 Capitole http://neeo.univ-tlse1.fr, University of Toulouse 1 Capitole.
- Caillaud, Bernard & Duchêne, Anne, 2011.
"Patent office in innovation policy: Nobody's perfect,"
International Journal of Industrial Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 242-252, March.
- Bernard Caillaud & Anne Duchene, 2009. "Patent Office in innovation policy: Nobody's perfect," PSE Working Papers halshs-00575019, HAL.
- Röller, Lars-Hendrik & Stennek, Johan & Verboven, Frank, 2000.
"Efficiency Gains from Mergers,"
Working Paper Series
543, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
- Barros, Pedro Pita, 2003. "Looking behind the curtain--effects from modernization of European Union competition policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 613-624, August.
- Gary S. Becker, 1974.
"Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach,"
in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 1-54
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Ecer, Sencer, 2005. "A rational expectations critique of merger policy analysis," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 86(1), pages 73-77, January.
- repec:fth:iniesr:543 is not listed on IDEAS
- Motta,Massimo, 2004. "Competition Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521016919, November.
- Shapiro, Carl & Willig, Robert D, 1990. "On the Antitrust Treatment of Production Joint Ventures," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(3), pages 113-30, Summer.
- Jo Seldeslachts & Joseph A. Clougherty & Pedro Pita Barros, 2007.
"Remedy for Now but Prohibit for Tomorrow: The Deterrence Effects of Merger Policy Tools,"
CIG Working Papers
SP II 2007-02, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
- Seldeslachts, Jo & Clougherty, Joseph A. & Barros, Pedro Pita, 2007. "Remedy for Now but Prohibit for Tomorrow: The Deterrence Effects of Merger Policy Tools," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 218, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
- Barros, Pedro Pita & Clougherty, Joseph A & Seldeslachts, Jo, 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.
- Jorde, Thomas M & Teece, David J, 1990. "Innovation and Cooperation: Implications for Competition and Antitrust," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(3), pages 75-96, Summer.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lucie Label).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.