IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

The Deterrence Effects of U.S. Merger Policy Instruments

Listed author(s):
  • Joseph A. Clougherty

    (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, USA, and CEPR-London)

  • Jo Seldeslachts

    (University of Amsterdam)

This discussion paper resulted in an article in the 'Journal of Law Economics & Organization' (2013). Volume 29(5), pages 1114-1144. We estimate the deterrence effects of U.S. merger policy instruments with respect tothe composition and frequency of future merger notifications. Data from the Annual Reports bythe U.S. DOJ and FTC allow industry based measures over the 1986-1999 period of theconditional probabilities for eliciting investigations, challenges, prohibitions, court-wins andcourt-losses: deterrence variables akin to the traditional conditional probabilities from theeconomics of crime literature. We find the challenge-rate to robustly deter future horizontal(both relative and absolute) merger activity; the investigation-rate to slightly deter relativehorizontalmerger activity; the court-loss-rate to moderately affect absolute-horizontal mergeractivity; and the prohibition-rate and court-win-rate to not significantly deter future horizontalmergers. Accordingly, the conditional probability of eliciting an antitrust challenge (i.e.,remedies and prohibitions) involves the strongest deterrence effect from amongst the differentmerger policy instruments.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL: http://papers.tinbergen.nl/11095.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Tinbergen Institute in its series Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers with number 11-095/1.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 15 Jul 2011
Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20110095
Contact details of provider: Postal:
Gustav Mahlerplein 117, 1082 MS Amsterdam

Phone: +31 (0)20 598 4580
Web page: http://www.tinbergen.nl/
Email:


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.:

as
in new window


  1. Alvtn Klevorick, 1995. "The Economic Theory of Crime and the Problems of a Society in Transition," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 2(2), pages 345-357.
  2. Arellano, Manuel & Bover, Olympia, 1995. "Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 29-51, July.
  3. Jo Seldeslachts & Joseph A. Clougherty & Pedro Pita Barros, 2009. "Settle for Now but Block for Tomorrow: The Deterrence Effects of Merger Policy Tools," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(3), pages 607-634, 08.
  4. Gary S. Becker, 1974. "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," NBER Chapters,in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 1-54 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  5. Albert Banal‐Estañol & Paul Heidhues & Rainer Nitsche & Jo Seldeslachts, 2010. "Screening And Merger Activity," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 794-817, December.
  6. Paul R. Zimmerman, 2009. "Statistical Variability and the Deterrent Effect of the Death Penalty," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 370-398.
  7. Jonathan B. Baker, 2003. "The Case for Antitrust Enforcement," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 27-50, Fall.
  8. Eckbo, B Espen & Wier, Peggy, 1985. "Antimerger Policy under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act: A Reexamination of the Market Power Hypothesis," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 119-149, April.
  9. Hashem Dezhbakhsh & Paul H. Rubin & Joanna M. Shepherd, 2003. "Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Postmoratorium Panel Data," American Law and Economics Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(2), pages 344-376, August.
  10. Doern, G. Bruce & Wilks, Stephen (ed.), 1996. "Comparative Competition Policy: National Institutions in a Global Market," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780198280620.
  11. Paul R. Zimmerman, 2006. "The Deterrent Effect of Alternative Execution Methods," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(4), pages 909-941, October.
  12. Donohue, John J & Wolfers, Justin, 2006. "Uses and Abuses of Empirical Evidence in the Death Penalty Debate," CEPR Discussion Papers 5493, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  13. William Greene, 2004. "The behaviour of the maximum likelihood estimator of limited dependent variable models in the presence of fixed effects," Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 7(1), pages 98-119, 06.
  14. Michael Gort, 1969. "An Economic Disturbance Theory of Mergers," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 83(4), pages 624-642.
  15. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo & Sendhil Mullainathan, 2004. "How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 119(1), pages 249-275.
  16. Golbe, Devra L & White, Lawrence J, 1993. "Catch a Wave: The Time Series Behavior of Mergers," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 75(3), pages 493-499, August.
  17. Robert W. Crandall & Clifford Winston, 2005. "Does antitrust policy improve consumer welfare? Assessing the evidence," Chapters,in: Governments, Competition and Utility Regulation, chapter 2 Edward Elgar Publishing.
  18. Cameron, Samuel, 1994. "A review of the econometric evidence on the effects of capital punishment," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 23(1-2), pages 197-214.
  19. Mathur, Vijay K, 1978. "Economics of Crime: An Investigation of the Deterrent Hypothesis for Urban Areas," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 60(3), pages 459-466, August.
  20. Paul L. Joskow, 2002. "Transaction Cost Economics, Antitrust Rules, and Remedies," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 95-116, April.
  21. John Kwoka, 1999. "Commitment to Competition: An Assessment of Antitrust Agency Budgets since 1970," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 14(4), pages 295-302, June.
  22. Mocan, H Naci & Gittings, R Kaj, 2003. "Getting Off Death Row: Commuted Sentences and the Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 46(2), pages 453-478, October.
  23. Dale Cloninger & Roberto Marchesini, 2006. "Execution moratoriums, commutations and deterrence: the case of Illinois," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(9), pages 967-973.
  24. Cameron, Samuel, 1988. "The Economics of Crime Deterrence: A Survey of Theory and Evidence," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 301-323.
  25. Rhodes-Kropf, Matthew & Robinson, David T. & Viswanathan, S., 2005. "Valuation waves and merger activity: The empirical evidence," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 561-603, September.
  26. Malcolm Coate, 2005. "Empirical Analysis of Merger Enforcement Under the 1992 Merger Guidelines," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 27(4), pages 279-301, December.
  27. Long, William F & Schramm, Richard & Tollison, Robert D, 1973. "The Economic Determinants of Antitrust Activity," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(2), pages 351-364, October.
  28. Passell, Peter & Taylor, John B, 1977. "The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Another View," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(3), pages 445-451, June.
  29. Manuel Arellano & Stephen Bond, 1991. "Some Tests of Specification for Panel Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 58(2), pages 277-297.
  30. Ehrlich, Isaac, 1973. "Participation in Illegitimate Activities: A Theoretical and Empirical Investigation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 81(3), pages 521-565, May-June.
  31. Eckbo, B Espen, 1992. " Mergers and the Value of Antitrust Deterrence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(3), pages 1005-1029, July.
  32. Andrade, Gregor & Stafford, Erik, 2004. "Investigating the economic role of mergers," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 1-36, January.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20110095. 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: (Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.