Professional interpretation of the standard of proof: An experimental test on merger regulation
AbstractThere is considerable debate about the alternative economic approaches to merger control taken by competition authorities. However, differences in economic analysis are not the only reason for alternative decisions. We conduct an experiment in decision making in the context of merger appraisal, identifying the separate influences of different standards of proof, volumes of evidence, cost of error and professional training. The experiment was conducted on current practitioners from nine different jurisdictions, in addition to student subjects. We find that legal standards of proof significantly affect decisions, and identify specific differences due to professional judgment. We are further able to narrow the range of explanations for why professionalization matters.
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 School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. in its series Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Behavioural and Experimental Social Science (CBESS) with number 09-16.
Date of creation: 01 Dec 2009
Date of revision:
Postal: Helen Chapman, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- L33 - Industrial Organization - - Nonprofit Organizations and Public Enterprise - - - Comparison of Public and Private Enterprise and Nonprofit Institutions; Privatization; Contracting Out
- L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General
- L50 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - General
- C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior
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.:
- Gordon D. Menzies & Daniel John Zizzo, 2005.
CAMA Working Papers
2005-12, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
- Gordon Menzies & Daniel John Zizzo, 2004. "Inferential Expectations," Economics Series Working Papers 187, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
- Gordon Menzies & Daniel John Zizzo, 2005. "Inferential Expectations," Research Paper Series 159, Quantitative Finance Research Centre, University of Technology, Sydney.
- Gordon D. Menzies & Daniel John Zizzo, 2005. "Inferential Expectations," CAMA Working Papers 2005-12, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
- Daniel L. Rubinfeld & David E.M. Sappington, 1987. "Efficient Awards and Standards of Proof in Judicial Proceedings," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 18(2), pages 308-315, Summer.
- Ludivine Garside & Paul A. Grout & Anna Zalewska, 2013. "Does Experience Make You ‘Tougher’? Evidence From Competition Law," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 0, pages 474-490, 05.
- Charness, Gary & Haruvy, Ernan & Sonsino, Doron, 2007. "Social distance and reciprocity: An Internet experiment," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 88-103, May.
- Christoph Engel & Andreas Glöckner, 2008. "Can We Trust Intuitive Jurors? An Experimental Analysis," Working Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2008_36, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Alasdair Brown).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.