IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/coecpo/v4y1986i3p1-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Restoring Predictability To Merger Guideline Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • THOMAS M. JORDE

Abstract

Two recent developments reduce predictability and accountability in merger analysis. First, the 1984 Merger Guidelines adopt a multifactor method of analysis that focuses upon market structure, other market factors, financial trends, and efficiencies. Little guidance is given concerning the relative importance of these factors or how they will be measured and balanced. Second, current enforcement agencies appear to take a “regulatory” approach to merger enforcement. They issue “no‐action” decisions in 90–95 percent of the mergers reviewed and reach “fix‐it‐first” consent settlements before complaints are filed in most remaining cases. These developments provide mixed blessings. Enforcement agencies gain flexibility and discretion. However, the business community suffers a reduction in predictability in merger analysis, which makes planning more difficult. Congress loses ability to carry out its oversight responsibilities, and the public's understanding of the government's policies is impaired. Systematic, regular reports of information used by the government analyzing significant “second‐request” mergers should replace the present system of providing either no information or, at best, only selected information through ad hoc press releases and official speeches. Reporting on these transactions would not be burdensome, because their number is relatively small and the information already has been produced by the investigating enforcement agency. This information could easily be incorporated into the annual Hart‐Scott‐Rodino Act reports. For each of these mergers, the information reported should include the government's views concerning the relevant market and the degree of concentration in that market. It also should specify the type and magnitude of other market factors, efficiencies, and/or defenses that might have played a role in reaching a decision not to prosecute the merger or a fix‐it‐first settlement. This information could be provided without infringing on confidentiality.

Suggested Citation

  • Thomas M. Jorde, 1986. "Restoring Predictability To Merger Guideline Analysis," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 4(3), pages 1-21, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:coecpo:v:4:y:1986:i:3:p:1-21
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1465-7287.1986.tb00845.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1986.tb00845.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1465-7287.1986.tb00845.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    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


    Cited by:

    1. James Langenfeld, 1986. "The Impact Of Antitrust Guidelines On Business," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 4(3), pages 22-29, July.

    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. Giuseppe Dari-Mattiacci & Bruno Deffains, 2007. "Uncertainty of Law and the Legal Process," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 163(4), pages 627-656, December.
    2. Magnus Söderberg, 2008. "Uncertainty and regulatory outcome in the Swedish electricity distribution sector," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 79-94, February.
    3. Dietrich Earnhart & Sarah Jacobson & Yusuke Kuwayama & Richard T. Woodward, 2023. "Discretionary Exemptions from Environmental Regulation: Flexibility for Good or for Ill," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 99(2), pages 203-221.
    4. Louis Kaplow, 1992. "A Model of the Optimal Complexity of Rules," NBER Working Papers 3958, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Ogus, Anthony, 2001. "Regulatory Institutions and Structures," Centre on Regulation and Competition (CRC) Working papers 30704, University of Manchester, Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM).
    6. Francesco Parisi, 2004. "Positive, Normative and Functional Schools in Law and Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 259-272, December.
    7. Bruno Deffains & Marie Obidzinski, 2009. "Real Options Theory for Law Makers," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 75(1), pages 93-117.
    8. Christian Schubert, 2006. "Fairness in Urban Land Use: An Evolutionary Contribution to Law & Economics," Papers on Economics and Evolution 2005-22, Philipps University Marburg, Department of Geography.
    9. Hanna Almlöf & Per-Olof Bjuggren, 2019. "A regulation and transaction cost perspective on the design of corporate law," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 47(3), pages 407-433, June.
    10. MacLeod, W. Bentley, 2011. "Great Expectations: Law, Employment Contracts, and Labor Market Performance," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 18, pages 1591-1696, Elsevier.
    11. Fabbri Marco & GC Britto Diogo, 2018. "Distributive Justice, Public Policies and the Comparison of Legal Rules: Quantify the “Price of Equity”," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(3), pages 1-23, November.
    12. Bergman, Nittai K. & Nicolaievsky, Daniel, 2007. "Investor protection and the Coasian view," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 84(3), pages 738-771, June.
    13. Harald Hau & Marcel Thum, 2000. "Lawyers, Legislation and Social Welfare," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(3), pages 231-254, May.
    14. Anthony Ogus, 1998. "Regulatory Appraisal: A Neglected Opportunity for Law and Economics," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 6(1), pages 53-68, July.
    15. Bartsch, Elga, 1997. "Environmental liability, imperfect information, and multidimensional pollution control," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(1), pages 139-146, March.
    16. Igor Kotlán & Daniel Němec & Zuzana Machová, 2019. "Právní nejistota v daňové oblasti a její dopady na nabídku práce v České republice [Legal Uncertainty in Taxation and Its Impacts on Labour Supply in the Czech Republic]," Politická ekonomie, Prague University of Economics and Business, vol. 2019(4), pages 371-384.
    17. Hoch, Felix & Lohwasser, Todor S., 2019. "The influence of institutions on venture capital: How transaction costs, uncertainty, and change affect new ventures," Discussion Papers of the Institute for Organisational Economics 9/2019, University of Münster, Institute for Organisational Economics.
    18. Kenneth Jull & Stephen Schmidt, 2010. "Preventing Harm in Telecommunications Regulation: A New Matrix of Principles and Rules Within the ex ante versus ex post Debate," Chapters, in: Anastassios Gentzoglanis & Anders Henten (ed.), Regulation and the Evolution of the Global Telecommunications Industry, chapter 6, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Schaefer, Hans-Bernd, 2002. "Rule Based Legal Systems as a Substitute for Human Capital. Should Poor Countries Have a More Rule-Based Legal System?," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series qt5xh8g9c7, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
    20. Fon, Vincy & Parisi, Francesco, 2006. "Judicial precedents in civil law systems: A dynamic analysis," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 519-535, December.

    More about this item

    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:bla:coecpo:v:4:y:1986:i:3:p:1-21. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.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.