Economic Arguments in U.S. Antitrust and EU Competition Policy: Two Roads Diverged
In this paper, I compare economic arguments in U.S. Supreme Court antitrust and EU Court of Justice competition policy decisions on four topics: refusal to deal, predation, vertical contracts, and hor- izontal interfirm relations.
|Date of creation:||Oct 2010|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Krannert Building, West Lafayette, IN 47907|
Web page: http://www.krannert.purdue.edu/programs/phd
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- David Genesove & Wallace P. Mullin, 1997.
"Predation and Its Rate of Return: The Sugar Industry, 1887-1914,"
NBER Working Papers
6032, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- David Genesove & Wallace P. Mullin, 2006. "Predation and its rate of return: the sugar industry, 1887–1914," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(1), pages 47-69, 03.
- Poitevin, M., 1987.
"Financial Signalling and the "Deep Pocket" Argument,"
Cahiers de recherche
8754, Universite de Montreal, Departement de sciences economiques.
- Michel Poitevin, 1989. "Financial Signalling and the "Deep-Pocket" Argument," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 20(1), pages 26-40, Spring.
- Giocoli, Nicola, 2008. "Competition vs. property rights: American antitrust law, the Freiburg School and the early years of European competition policy," MPRA Paper 33807, University Library of Munich, Germany.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pur:prukra:1257. 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: (Krannert PHD)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.