IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ulp/sbbeta/2012-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

L’autorité de la concurrence doit-elle, dans le cadre de sa fonction consultative disposer de toutes les libertés ? Retour sur l’avis n°12-A-01 du 11 janvier 2012 portant sur la distribution alimentaire à Paris

Author

Listed:
  • Marc Deschamps

Abstract

L’Autorité de la concurrence doit-elle, dans le cadre de sa fonction consultative, disposer de toutes libertés ? Retour sur l’avis n°12-A-01 du 11 janvier 2012 portant sur la distribution alimentaire à Paris Marc Deschamps1 ATER à l’Université de Lorraine, GREDEG-CNRS et BETA-CNRS Résumé : L’Autorité de la concurrence s’est depuis plus de deux années substituée au Conseil de la concurrence. Cette modification formelle et substantielle semble avoir engendré deux évolutions majeures. La première concerne la volonté de mieux fonder juridiquement et économiquement l’activité de l’autorité française de concurrence. La seconde porte sur le renforcement de l’idée selon laquelle l’Autorité de la concurrence est la seule institution compétente et légitime à définir et mettre en oeuvre la politique française de la concurrence. L’avis récent de l’Autorité de la concurrence sur la situation concurrentielle de la distribution alimentaire à Paris est un cas exemplaire de ces deux évolutions car, d’une part, il propose une analyse économique précise et, d’autre part, il milite pour l’introduction d’injonctions structurelles en l’absence d’infraction aux règles de concurrence. Pourtant, si la première de ces évolutions constitue un réel progrès, la seconde ne paraît que très peu fondée démocratiquement, juridiquement, ou sous l’angle de l’analyse économique.

Suggested Citation

  • Marc Deschamps, 2012. "L’autorité de la concurrence doit-elle, dans le cadre de sa fonction consultative disposer de toutes les libertés ? Retour sur l’avis n°12-A-01 du 11 janvier 2012 portant sur la distribution alimentai," Working Papers of BETA 2012-03, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
  • Handle: RePEc:ulp:sbbeta:2012-03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.beta-umr7522.fr/productions/publications/2012/2012-03.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Leopold Simar & Paul Wilson, 2000. "A general methodology for bootstrapping in non-parametric frontier models," Journal of Applied Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 27(6), pages 779-802.
    2. Friedman, Joseph & Silberman, Jonathan, 2003. "University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and Location Matter?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 17-30, January.
    3. Mowery, David C. & Nelson, Richard R. & Sampat, Bhaven N. & Ziedonis, Arvids A., 2001. "The growth of patenting and licensing by U.S. universities: an assessment of the effects of the Bayh-Dole act of 1980," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 99-119.
    4. Siegel, Donald S. & Waldman, David & Link, Albert, 2003. "Assessing the impact of organizational practices on the relative productivity of university technology transfer offices: an exploratory study," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 27-48.
    5. repec:oup:cesifo:v:54:y:2008:i:2:p:99-120. is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Mustar, Philippe & Laredo, Philippe, 2002. "Innovation and research policy in France (1980-2000) or the disappearance of the Colbertist state," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 55-72.
    7. Chapple, Wendy & Lockett, Andy & Siegel, Donald & Wright, Mike, 2005. "Assessing the relative performance of U.K. university technology transfer offices: parametric and non-parametric evidence," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 369-384.
    8. Charnes, A. & Cooper, W. W. & Rhodes, E., 1978. "Measuring the efficiency of decision making units," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 2(6), pages 429-444, November.
    9. Albert Link & Donald Siegel, 2005. "Generating science-based growth: an econometric analysis of the impact of organizational incentives on university-industry technology transfer," The European Journal of Finance, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 169-181.
    10. Saul Lach & Mark Schankerman, 2004. "Royalty Sharing and Technology Licensing in Universities," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 2(2-3), pages 252-264, 04/05.
    11. Simar, Leopold & Wilson, Paul W., 2007. "Estimation and inference in two-stage, semi-parametric models of production processes," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 136(1), pages 31-64, January.
    12. Mowery, David C & Oxley, Joanne E, 1995. "Inward Technology Transfer and Competitiveness: The Role of National Innovation Systems," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 67-93, February.
    13. Weisz, Helga & Duchin, Faye, 2006. "Physical and monetary input-output analysis: What makes the difference?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, pages 534-541.
    14. Donald S. Siegel & Reinhilde Veugelers & Mike Wright, 2007. "Technology transfer offices and commercialization of university intellectual property: performance and policy implications," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 23(4), pages 640-660, Winter.
    15. Jerry G. Thursby & Marie C. Thursby, 2002. "Who Is Selling the Ivory Tower? Sources of Growth in University Licensing," Management Science, INFORMS, pages 90-104.
    16. Simar, Leopold & Wilson, Paul W., 2002. "Non-parametric tests of returns to scale," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 139(1), pages 115-132, May.
    17. Caldera, Aida & Debande, Olivier, 2010. "Performance of Spanish universities in technology transfer: An empirical analysis," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 1160-1173.
    18. Antonio Della Malva & Francesco Lissoni & Patrick Llerena, 2008. "Institutional Change and Academic Patenting: French Universities and the Innovation Act of the 1999," Working Papers of BETA 2008-09, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    19. Peter Rodriguez & Donald S Siegel & Amy Hillman & Lorraine Eden, 2006. "Three lenses on the multinational enterprise: politics, corruption, and corporate social responsibility," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, pages 733-746.
    20. Donald Siegel & Mike Wright & Wendy Chapple & Andy Lockett, 2008. "Assessing The Relative Performance Of University Technology Transfer In The Us And Uk: A Stochastic Distance Function Approach," Economics of Innovation and New Technology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(7-8), pages 717-729.
    21. Bădin, Luiza & Daraio, Cinzia & Simar, Léopold, 2012. "How to measure the impact of environmental factors in a nonparametric production model," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 223(3), pages 818-833.
    22. Frederick van der Ploeg & Reinhilde Veugelers, 2008. "Towards Evidence-based Reform of European Universities," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo, pages 99-120.
    23. Henry Etzkowitz, 2002. "Incubation of incubators: innovation as a triple helix of university-industry-government networks," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(2), pages 115-128, April.
    24. Daraio, Cinzia & Bonaccorsi, Andrea & Geuna, Aldo & Lepori, Benedetto & Bach, Laurent & Bogetoft, Peter & F. Cardoso, Margarida & Castro-Martinez, Elena & Crespi, Gustavo & de Lucio, Ignacio Fernandez, 2011. "The European university landscape: A micro characterization based on evidence from the Aquameth project," Research Policy, Elsevier, pages 148-164.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Autorité de la concurrence; fonction consultative; injonction structurelle.;

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • K40 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - General
    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General

    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:ulp:sbbeta:2012-03. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/bestrfr.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.