An Econometric Analysis of the European Commission's Merger Decisions
Using a sample of 96 mergers notified to the EU Commission and logit regression techniques, we analyse the Commission's decision process. We find that the probability of a phase 2 investigation and of a prohibition of the merger increases with the parties' market shares. The probability increases also when the Commission finds high entry barriers or that post-merger collusion is easy. We do not find significant effects of political variables, such as the nationality of the merging firms or the identity of the commissioner.
|Date of creation:||03 Feb 2003|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: + 46 18 471 25 00
Fax: + 46 18 471 14 78
Web page: http://www.nek.uu.se/
More information through EDIRC
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Davies, Stephen W & Driffield, Nigel L & Clarke, Roger, 1999.
"Monopoly in the UK: What Determines Whether the MMC Finds against the Investigated Firms?,"
Journal of Industrial Economics,
Wiley Blackwell, vol. 47(3), pages 263-83, September.
- Davies, S.W. & Driffield, N.L. & Clarke, R., 1998. "Monopoly in the UK: What Determines whether the MMC finds against the Investigated Firms?," University of East Anglia Discussion Papers in Economics 9808, School of Economics, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
- Ghosal, Vivek & Gallo, Joseph, 2001. "The cyclical behavior of the Department of Justice's antitrust enforcement activity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 27-54, January.
- Lars-Hendrik Röller & Johan Stennek & Frank Verboven, 2000.
"Efficiency Gains from Mergers,"
CIG Working Papers
FS IV 00-09, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
- Fabienne Ilzkovitz & Roderick Meiklejohn, 2006.
"European Merger Control: Do We Need an Efficiency Defence?,"
in: European Merger Control, chapter 2
- Fabienne Ilzkovitz & Roderick Meiklejohn, 2003. "European Merger Control: Do We Need an Efficiency Defence?," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 57-85, March.
- Farrell, Joseph & Shapiro, Carl, 1988.
"Horizontal Mergers: An Equilibrium Analysis,"
Department of Economics, Working Paper Series
qt0tp305nx, Department of Economics, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Daniel McFadden, 1975. "The Revealed Preferences of a Government Bureaucracy: Theory," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 6(2), pages 401-416, Autumn.
- Daniel McFadden, 1976. "The Revealed Preferences of a Government Bureaucracy: Empirical Evidence," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 7(1), pages 55-72, Spring.
- Nilsen, T., 1995.
"On the Consistency of Merger Policy,"
32/1995, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
- Khemani, R S & Shapiro, Daniel M, 1993. "An Empirical Analysis of Canadian Merger Policy," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 161-77, June.
- Posner, Richard A, 1970. "A Statistical Study of Antitrust Enforcement," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(2), pages 365-419, October.
- Damien Neven, 2002. "Discrepancies Between Markets and Regulators: an Analysis of the First ten Years of EU Merger Control," IHEID Working Papers 10-2002, Economics Section, The Graduate Institute of International Studies.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hhs:uunewp:2003_006. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Katarina Grönvall)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.