IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/beo/journl/v59y2014i202p69-106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Horizontal Mergers And Weak And Strong Competition Commissions

Author

Listed:
  • Bojan Ristić
  • Dejan Trifunović

Abstract

In this paper we analyse the horizontal merger of companies in an already concentrated industry. The participants in mergers are obliged to submit notification to the Competition Commission but they also have the option of rejecting the merger. At the time of the notification submission the participants do not know whether the Commission is strong or weak, and they can complain to the Court if the Commission prohibits the merger. We model the strategic interaction between Participants and Commission in a dynamic game of incomplete information and determine weak perfect Bayesian equilibria. The main finding of our paper is that Participants will base their decision to submit notification on their belief in a weak Commission decision and will almost completely ignore the possibility of a strong Commission decision. We also provide a detailed examination of one case from Serbian regulatory practice, which coincides with the results of our game theoretical model.

Suggested Citation

  • Bojan Ristić & Dejan Trifunović, 2014. "Horizontal Mergers And Weak And Strong Competition Commissions," Economic Annals, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade, vol. 59(202), pages 69-106, July – Se.
    • Handle: RePEc:beo:journl:v:59:y:2014:i:202:p:69-106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.ekof.bg.ac.rs/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fudenberg, Drew & Tirole, Jean, 1991. "Perfect Bayesian equilibrium and sequential equilibrium," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 53(2), pages 236-260, April.
    2. Arndt Christiansen & Wolfgang Kerber, 2006. "Competition Policy With Optimally Differentiated Rules Instead Of “Per Se Rules Vs Rule Of Reason”," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 2(2), pages 215-244.
    3. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1991. "Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262061414, December.
    4. Motta,Massimo, 2004. "Competition Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521016919.
    5. Farrell, Joseph & Shapiro, Carl, 1990. "Horizontal Mergers: An Equilibrium Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 107-126, March.
    6. Besanko, David & Spulber, Daniel F, 1993. "Contested Mergers and Equilibrium Antitrust Policy," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 1-29, April.
    7. Osborne, Martin J., 2009. "Introduction to Game Theory: International Edition," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195322484, Decembrie.
    8. Neven, Damien J. & Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 2005. "Consumer surplus vs. welfare standard in a political economy model of merger control," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 829-848, December.
    9. Louis Kaplow, 2011. "Market Share Thresholds: On The Conflation Of Empirical Assessments And Legal Policy Judgments," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(2), pages 243-276.
    10. Martin J. Osborne & Ariel Rubinstein, 1994. "A Course in Game Theory," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262650401, December.
    11. Perry, Martin K & Porter, Robert H, 1985. "Oligopoly and the Incentive for Horizontal Merger," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 75(1), pages 219-227, March.
    12. McAfee, R Preston & Williams, Michael A, 1992. "Horizontal Mergers and Antitrust Policy," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 40(2), pages 181-187, June.
    13. Raymond Deneckere & Carl Davidson, 1985. "Incentives to Form Coalitions with Bertrand Competition," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 16(4), pages 473-486, Winter.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mason, Robin & Weeds, Helen, 2013. "Merger policy, entry, and entrepreneurship," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 23-38.
    2. Medvedev, A., 2004. "Structural Remedies in Merger Regulation in a Cournot Framework," Discussion Paper 2004-006, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
    3. Andrei Medvedev, 2007. "Structural Remedies in Merger Regulation in a Cournot Framework," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2007-16, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    4. Jovanovic, Dragan & Wey, Christian, 2012. "An equilibrium analysis of efficiency gains from mergers," DICE Discussion Papers 64, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    5. Emilie Dargaud, 2013. "Horizontal mergers, efficiency gains and remedies," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 349-372, October.
    6. Cosnita, Andreea & Tropeano, Jean-Philippe, 2009. "Negotiating remedies: Revealing the merger efficiency gains," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 188-196, March.
    7. Amir, Rabah & Diamantoudi, Effrosyni & Xue, Licun, 2009. "Merger performance under uncertain efficiency gains," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 264-273, March.
    8. Choné, Philippe & Linnemer, Laurent, 2008. "Assessing horizontal mergers under uncertain efficiency gains," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 913-929, July.
    9. Mariana Cunha & Hélder Vasconcelos, 2018. "Sequential Mergers and Antitrust Authority’s Decisions in Stackelberg Markets," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 373-394, September.
    10. Helder Vasconcelos, 2013. "Can the failing firm defence rule be counterproductive?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 65(2), pages 567-593, April.
    11. Bruce Lyons, 2001. "What Do We Conclude from the Success and Failure of Mergers?," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 411-422, December.
    12. Tomaso Duso & Klaus Gugler & Florian Szücs, 2013. "An Empirical Assessment of the 2004 EU Merger Policy Reform," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 123(11), pages 596-619, November.
    13. Nie, Pu-yan & Wang, Chan & Wen, Hong-xing, 2021. "Horizontal mergers under uniform resource constraints," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    14. Nilssen, Tore & Sorgard, Lars, 1998. "Sequential horizontal mergers," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1683-1702, November.
    15. Robert Town & Douglas Wholey & Roger Feldman & Lawton R. Burns, 2006. "The Welfare Consequences of Hospital Mergers," NBER Working Papers 12244, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Chen, Jiawei, 2009. "The effects of mergers with dynamic capacity accumulation," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 92-109, January.
    17. Marie Goppelsroeder & Maarten Pieter Schinkel & Jan Tuinstra, 2008. "Quantifying The Scope For Efficiency Defense In Merger Control: The Werden‐Froeb‐Index," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(4), pages 778-808, December.
    18. Zhu, Jing & Boyaci, Tamer & Ray, Saibal, 2016. "Effects of upstream and downstream mergers on supply chain profitability," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 249(1), pages 131-143.
    19. Jean-Charles Rochet, 2007. "Some economics of horizontal integration in the payments industry," Proceedings – Payments System Research Conferences, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
    20. Lommerud, Kjell Erik & Sorgard, Lars, 1997. "Merger and product range rivalry," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 16(1), pages 21-42, November.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C72 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Noncooperative Games
    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General
    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:beo:journl:v:59:y:2014:i:202:p:69-106. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Goran Petrić (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/efbeoyu.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.