IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v17y2021i3p708-727..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Evolution of Merger Enforcement Intensity: What do the Data Show?

Author

Listed:
  • Jeffrey T Macher
  • John W Mayo

Abstract

A growing narrative has arisen that antitrust regulators have systematically relaxed enforcement over time. This narrative has led to calls for reinvigorated enforcement and the passage of new tougher antitrust legislation. In this paper, we employ data drawn directly from the antitrust agencies to examine this claim. Data collected from 1979 to 2017 indicate that, contrary to the popular narrative, regulators have become more likely to challenge proposed mergers over time. Controlling for the number of merger proposals submitted to the agencies, the likelihood of a merger challenge has more than doubled over this period. After remaining relatively constant over previous administrations, merger enforcement intensity (MEI) rose in the G.W. Bush and even more so in the Obama administrations. The data also reveal that MEI is positively influenced by the agency budget size. Were historical enforcement tendencies to continue, a ten percent increase in the agencies’ budgets would yield an eight percent increase in merger challenges. This finding suggests that, independent of any statutory changes to existing antitrust laws, variation in agency budgets provides a viable pathway to enhanced merger enforcement.

Suggested Citation

  • Jeffrey T Macher & John W Mayo, 2021. "The Evolution of Merger Enforcement Intensity: What do the Data Show?," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 17(3), pages 708-727.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:17:y:2021:i:3:p:708-727.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhaa037
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:oup:jcomle:v:17:y:2021:i:3:p:708-727.. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    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.