IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/bon/boncrc/crctr224_2025_755.html

Merger Control Amid Market Evolutions and Shocks: What the EU Merger Guidelines Should Say

Author

Listed:
  • Volker Nocke

  • Martin Peitz

  • Nicolas Schutz

Abstract

The European Commission’s 2026 draft merger guidelines make merger review more forward-looking but leave open how anticipated and uncertain cost and demand shifts should affect the merger approval standard. Economic theory can fill this gap. Anticipated adverse cost or demand shifts tend to raise concentration but compress margins, so the required synergy threshold should fall, and merger control should ease. Favourable cost or demand shifts have the opposite implication and call for stricter scrutiny. When future shifts are uncertain, the appropriate merger policy response depends on how the authority accounts for uncertainty in its welfare assessment, yet the guidelines are silent on that choice.

Suggested Citation

  • Volker Nocke & Martin Peitz & Nicolas Schutz, 2026. "Merger Control Amid Market Evolutions and Shocks: What the EU Merger Guidelines Should Say," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2025_755, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:bon:boncrc:crctr224_2025_755
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.crctr224.de/research/discussion-papers/archive/dp755
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Massimo Motta & Volker Nocke & Martin Peitz, 2024. "Geopolitical Risks and Prudential Merger Control," CRC TR 224 Discussion Paper Series crctr224_2024_568, University of Bonn and University of Mannheim, Germany.
    2. Gilboa, Itzhak & Schmeidler, David, 1989. "Maxmin expected utility with non-unique prior," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 141-153, April.
    3. Farrell, Joseph & Shapiro, Carl, 1990. "Horizontal Mergers: An Equilibrium Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 107-126, March.
    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. Hansen, Lars Peter & Sargent, Thomas J., 2022. "Structured ambiguity and model misspecification," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    2. Bomin Jiang & Daniel Rigobon & Roberto Rigobon, 2022. "From Just-in-Time, to Just-in-Case, to Just-in-Worst-Case: Simple Models of a Global Supply Chain under Uncertain Aggregate Shocks," IMF Economic Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Monetary Fund, vol. 70(1), pages 141-184, March.
    3. Rodney Beard, 2015. "N-Firm Oligopoly With General Iso-Elastic Demand," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(4), pages 336-345, October.
    4. Aurélien Baillon & Yoram Halevy & Chen Li, 2022. "Experimental elicitation of ambiguity attitude using the random incentive system," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 25(3), pages 1002-1023, June.
    5. Hsieh, Chia-Chun & Ma, Zhiming & Novoselov, Kirill E., 2019. "Accounting conservatism, business strategy, and ambiguity," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 41-55.
    6. Rhys Bidder & Ian Dew-Becker, 2016. "Long-Run Risk Is the Worst-Case Scenario," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(9), pages 2494-2527, September.
    7. Hansen, Lars Peter, 2013. "Uncertainty Outside and Inside Economic Models," Nobel Prize in Economics documents 2013-7, Nobel Prize Committee.
    8. Li, Wenhui & Wilde, Christian, 2020. "Belief formation and belief updating under ambiguity: Evidence from experiments," SAFE Working Paper Series 251, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE, revised 2020.
    9. Michael Woodford, 2010. "Robustly Optimal Monetary Policy with Near-Rational Expectations," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(1), pages 274-303, March.
    10. Patrick Beissner & Tim Boonen & Mario Ghossoub, 2026. "Betting under Common Beliefs: The Effect of Probability Weighting," Papers 2602.24194, arXiv.org.
    11. Ricardo Caballero & Arvind Krishnamurthy, 2005. "Financial System Risk and Flight to Quality," NBER Working Papers 11834, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Jean-Yves Jaffray & Meglena Jeleva, 2004. "How to deal with partially analyzed acts? A proposal," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v04098, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    13. 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).
    14. Kaplow, Louis & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Antitrust," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 1073-1225, Elsevier.
    15. Qi Nan Zhai, 2015. "Asset Pricing Under Ambiguity and Heterogeneity," PhD Thesis, Finance Discipline Group, UTS Business School, University of Technology, Sydney, number 16, July-Dece.
    16. Zhi Chen & Melvyn Sim & Huan Xu, 2019. "Distributionally Robust Optimization with Infinitely Constrained Ambiguity Sets," Operations Research, INFORMS, vol. 67(5), pages 1328-1344, September.
    17. Frank Stähler & Thorsten Upmann, 2008. "Market Entry Regulation and International Competition," Review of International Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 16(4), pages 611-626, September.
    18. Gajdos, Thibault & Maurin, Eric, 2004. "Unequal uncertainties and uncertain inequalities: an axiomatic approach," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 116(1), pages 93-118, May.
    19. Marc Escrihuela-Villar & Ramon Faulí-Oller, 2008. "Mergers in asymmetric Stackelberg markets," Spanish Economic Review, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 279-288, December.
    20. Castro, Luciano de & Galvao, Antonio F. & Kim, Jeong Yeol & Montes-Rojas, Gabriel & Olmo, Jose, 2022. "Experiments on portfolio selection: A comparison between quantile preferences and expected utility decision models," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 97(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    JEL classification:

    • 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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:bon:boncrc:crctr224_2025_755. 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: CRC Office (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.crctr224.de .

    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.