IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/4936.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Optimal pre-merger notification mechanisms - incentives and efficiency of mandatory and voluntary schemes

Author

Listed:
  • Gonzalez, Aldo
  • Benitez, Daniel

Abstract

The authors compare the two merger control systems currently employed worldwide: a mandatory system based on merger size threshold and a voluntary system with ex-post monitoring and fines. The voluntary system possesses two informational advantages: (i) the enforcement agency employs more information -verifiable and non verifiable parameters- to decide the set of mergers to investigate, and (ii) the first move of merging firms reveals useful information to the agency about the competitive risk of a merger. If fines for undue omission to notify are upward limited, then a mixed mechanism is optimal, where small transactions are under a voluntary regime while the big mergers are obliged to report. Remedies for fixing anticompetitive mergers act as an instrument that induces firms to notify the operation, improving further the advantage of the voluntary mechanism.

Suggested Citation

  • Gonzalez, Aldo & Benitez, Daniel, 2009. "Optimal pre-merger notification mechanisms - incentives and efficiency of mandatory and voluntary schemes," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4936, The World Bank.
  • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:4936
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www-wds.worldbank.org/external/default/WDSContentServer/WDSP/IB/2009/05/19/000158349_20090519085418/Rendered/PDF/WPS4936.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Johnson, Ronald N & Parkman, Allen M, 1991. "Premerger Notification and the Incentive to Merge and Litigate," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 145-162, Spring.
    2. Choe, Chongwoo & Shekhar, Chander, 2010. "Compulsory or voluntary pre-merger notification? Theory and some evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 10-20, January.
    3. Elzinga, Kenneth G, 1969. "The Antimerger Law: Pyrrhic Victories?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 12(1), pages 43-78, April.
    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. Ottaviani, Marco & Wickelgren, Abraham L., 2011. "Ex ante or ex post competition policy? A progress report," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 356-359, May.
    2. Andreea Cosnita-Langlais, 2016. "Enforcement of Merger Control. Theoretical Insights for Its Procedural Design," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 67(HS1), pages 39-51.
    3. Mikhail Kouliavtsev, 2007. "Measuring the Extent of Structural Remedy in Section 7 Settlements: Was the US DOJ Successful in the 1990s?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 30(1), pages 1-27, February.
    4. Friberg, Richard & Romahn, André, 2015. "Divestiture requirements as a tool for competition policy: A case from the Swedish beer market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 1-18.
    5. Sven Heim & Kai Hüschelrath & Ulrich Laitenberger, 2016. "The Duration of the EC Merger Control Process: Determinants and the Impact of the 2004 Merger Regulation Reform," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 37-62, February.
    6. Adriaan R. Soetevent & Marco A. Haan & Pim Heijnen, 2014. "Do Auctions and Forced Divestitures Increase Competition? Evidence for Retail Gasoline Markets," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(3), pages 467-502, September.
    7. Paul Pautler, 2015. "A Brief History of the FTC’s Bureau of Economics: Reports, Mergers, and Information Regulation," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 46(1), pages 59-94, February.
    8. Orley Ashenfelter & Daniel Hosken & Matthew Weinberg, 2014. "Did Robert Bork Understate the Competitive Impact of Mergers? Evidence from Consummated Mergers," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(S3), pages 67-100.
    9. Duso, Tomaso & Gugler, Klaus & Yurtoglu, Burcin B., 2011. "How effective is European merger control?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(7), pages 980-1006.
    10. Adriaan R. Soetevent & Marco A. Haan & Pim Heijnen, 2008. "Do Auctions and Forced Divestitures increase Competition?," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 08-117/1, Tinbergen Institute, revised 02 Aug 2011.
    11. Tomaso Duso & Klaus Gugler & Burcin Yurtoglu, 2005. "EU Merger Remedies: A Preliminary Empirical Assessment," CIG Working Papers SP II 2005-16, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    12. Kurdin, Alexander & Shastitko, Anastasia, 2013. "The use of economic analysis in antitrust proceedings: an empirical study," Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, pages 91-111, August.
    13. Romahn, André & Friberg, Richard, 2012. "Ex-Post Merger Review and Divestitures," IESE Research Papers D/1056, IESE Business School.
    14. Gao, Ning & Peng, Ni & Strong, Norman, 2017. "What determines horizontal merger antitrust case selection?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 51-76.
    15. Tropeano, Jean-Philippe, 2020. "Ex ante or Ex post? When the timing of merger assessment is up to the merging firms," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    16. Tenn, Steven & Yun, John M., 2011. "The success of divestitures in merger enforcement: Evidence from the J&J-Pfizer transaction," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 273-282, March.
    17. Andreea Cosnita-Langlais & Jean-Philippe Tropeano, 2013. "Ex post or ex ante? On the optimal timing of merger control," EconomiX Working Papers 2013-22, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Microfinance; Bankruptcy and Resolution of Financial Distress; Corporate Law; Economic Theory&Research; Small Scale Enterprise;
    All these keywords.

    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:wbk:wbrwps:4936. 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: (Roula I. Yazigi). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.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.

    If CitEc recognized a 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.

    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.