This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Remedy for Now but Prohibit for Tomorrow: The Deterrence Effects of Merger Policy Tools

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Jo Seldeslachts (Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Reichpietschufer 50, 10785 Berlin, Germany Seldeslachts@wz-berlin.de)
Joseph A. Clougherty (Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Reichpietschufer 50, 10785 Berlin, Germany Clougherty@wz-berlin.de)
Pedro Pita Barros (Universade Nova de Lisboa and CEPR FEUNL, Campus de Campolide, 1099-032 Lisboa, Portugal PPBarros@fe.unl.pt)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Antitrust policy involves not just the regulation of anti-competitive behavior, but also an important deterrence effect. Neither scholars nor policymakers have fully researched the deterrence effects of merger policy tools, as they have been unable to empirically measure these effects. We consider the ability of different antitrust actions – Prohibitions, Remedies, and Monitorings – to deter firms from engaging in mergers. We employ cross-jurisdiction/pan-time data on merger policy to empirically estimate the impact of antitrust actions on future merger frequencies. We find merger prohibitions to lead to decreased merger notifications in subsequent periods, and remedies to weakly increase future merger notifications: in other words, prohibitions involve a deterrence effect but remedies do not.

Download Info
To download:

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. Information about this may be contained in the File-Format links below. 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.sfbtr15.de/dipa/218.pdf
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich in its series Discussion Papers with number 218.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: Sep 2007
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:trf:wpaper:218

Contact details of provider:
Postal: D-68131 Mannheim
Fax: +49 621 181-2785
Email:
Web page: http://www.sfbtr15.de/
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Claudia Jung).

Related research
Keywords:

Other versions of this item:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
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

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

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.:
  1. Gregor Andrade & Mark Mitchell & Erik Stafford, 2001. "New Evidence and Perspectives on Mergers," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 103-120, Spring. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  2. Lars-Hendrik Röller & Johan Stennek & Frank Verboven, 2000. "Efficiency Gains from Mergers," CIG Working Papers FS IV 00-09, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG). [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  3. Konings, Jozef & Van Cayseele, Patrick & Warzynski, Frederic, 2001. "The dynamics of industrial mark-ups in two small open economies: does national competition policy matter?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 841-859, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  4. Arellano, Manuel & Bond, Stephen, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," Review of Economic Studies, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 58(2), pages 277-97, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Klaus Gugler & Dennis C. Mueller & B. Burcin Yurtoglu, 2005. "The determinants of merger waves," Working Papers 05-15, Utrecht School of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  6. Tomaso Duso & Klaus Gugler & Burcin Yurtoglu, 2006. "How Effective is European Merger Control?," Discussion Papers 153, SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  7. Warzynski, Frederic, 2001. "Did tough antitrust policy lead to lower mark-ups in the US manufacturing industry?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 70(1), pages 139-144, January. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Block, Michael K & Feinstein, Jonathan S, 1986. "The Spillover Effect of Antitrust Enforcement," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(1), pages 122-31, February. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Dutz, Mark A. & Vagliasindi, Maria, 2000. "Competition policy implementation in transition economies: An empirical assessment," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(4-6), pages 762-772, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. Fridolfsson S.O. & Stennek J., 1999. "Why mergers reduce profits, and raise share prices: A theory of preemptive mergers," Working Papers 1999018, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  11. Posner, Richard A, 1970. "A Statistical Study of Antitrust Enforcement," Journal of Law & Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(2), pages 365-419, October.
  12. Stillman, Robert, 1983. "Examining antitrust policy towards horizontal mergers," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(1-4), pages 225-240, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  13. Ehrlich, Isaac, 1973. "Participation in Illegitimate Activities: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(3), pages 521-65, May-June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  14. Feinberg, Robert M, 1980. "Antitrust Enforcement and Subsequent Price Behavior," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 62(4), pages 609-12, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  15. Robert W. Crandall & Clifford Winston, 2003. "Does Antitrust Policy Improve Consumer Welfare? Assessing the Evidence," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 3-26, Fall. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  16. Gary S. Becker, 1968. "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 76, pages 169. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  17. Eckbo, B Espen, 1992. " Mergers and the Value of Antitrust Deterrence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(3), pages 1005-29, July. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  18. Patrick Van Cayseele & Jozef Konings & Jan De Loecker, 2003. "Merger Review: How much of Industry is Affected in an International Perspective ?," Center for Economic Studies - Discussion papers ces0315, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centrum voor Economische Studiën. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  19. Cabral, Luis M. B., 2003. "Horizontal mergers with free-entry: why cost efficiencies may be a weak defense and asset sales a poor remedy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 607-623, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  20. Lambrecht, Bart M., 2004. "The timing and terms of mergers motivated by economies of scale," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(1), pages 41-62, April. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  21. Craswell, Richard & Calfee, John E, 1986. "Deterrence and Uncertain Legal Standards," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 279-303, Fall.
  22. Block, Michael Kent & Nold, Frederick Carl, 1981. "The Deterrent Effect of Antitrust Enforcement," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(3), pages 429-45, June. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  23. Harford, Jarrad, 2005. "What drives merger waves?," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 529-560, September. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  24. Duso, Tomaso & Neven, Damien J & Röller, Lars-Hendrik, 2003. "The Political Economy of European Merger Control: Evidence Using Stock Market Data," CEPR Discussion Papers 3880, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  25. Steve Bond & Céline Nauges & Frank Windmeijer, 2005. "Unit roots: identification and testing in micro panels," CeMMAP working papers CWP07/05, Centre for Microdata Methods and Practice, Institute for Fiscal Studies. [Downloadable!]
  26. 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.
  27. Eckbo, B Espen & Wier, Peggy, 1985. "Antimerger Policy under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act: A Reexamination of the Market Power Hypothesis," Journal of Law & Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 119-49, April.
  28. Jonathan B. Baker, 2003. "The Case for Antitrust Enforcement," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 27-50, Fall. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  29. Sah, Raaj K, 1991. "Social Osmosis and Patterns of Crime," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(6), pages 1272-95, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, 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.)

  1. 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. [Downloadable!]
  2. Andreea Cosnita & Jean-Philippe Tropeano, 2006. "On the effective design of the efficiency defence," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v06030, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1). [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  3. Fumagalli, Eileen & Nilssen, Tore, 2008. "Waiting to Merge," Memorandum 13/2008, Oslo University, Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
  4. Tomaso Duso & Klaus Gugler & Burçin Yurtoglu, 2006. "How Effective is European Merger Control?," CIG Working Papers SP II 2006-12, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG). [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
    • Tomaso Duso & Klaus Gugler & Burcin Yurtoglu, 2006. "How Effective is European Merger Control?," Discussion Papers 153, SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich. [Downloadable!]
  5. Jan Loecker & Jozef Konings & Patrick Cayseele, 2008. "Merger Review: How Much of Industry is Affected in an International Perspective?," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 8(1), pages 1-19, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? About 1000 archives contribute their bibliographic data to RePEc.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-20.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.