IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Die Ministererlaubnis als Element der deutschen Wettbewerbsordnung: Eine theoretische und empirische Analyse


  • Budzinski, Oliver
  • Stöhr, Annika


Das Instrument der Ministererlaubnis ist ein vieldiskutierter Sonderfall in der deutschen Wettbewerbspolitik, bei welchem der Bundeswirtschaftsminister einen vom Bundeskartellamt (BKartA) untersagten Zusammenschluss bei Vorliegen besonderer Gründe im Nachhinein doch noch erlauben kann. Im vorliegenden Beitrag werden sowohl die Ausgestaltung, als auch die Sinnhaftigkeit des Instrumentes an sich aus ökonomischer Sicht beleuchtet, indem zunächst die im Gesetz verankerten Gründe für eine Erlaubnis auf einen Konflikt mit dem Schutz des Wettbewerbs, als übergeordnete Aufgabe des BKartA, untersucht werden. Nach einer Analyse der bisherigen 22 Fälle, bezogen auf die jeweiligen Begründungen und Erfolge, werden abschließend fünf Möglichkeiten zur Novellierung des Instrumentes diskutiert. Dabei kommen die Autoren zu dem Schluss, dass eine Anpassung des Gesetzes, sowohl bezogen auf das entscheidende Gremium, als auch bezüglich der zulässigen Begründungen für eine Ministererlaubnis, notwendig wäre, um das Bestehen des Instrumentes wohlfahrtsökonomisch rechtfertigen zu können.

Suggested Citation

  • Budzinski, Oliver & Stöhr, Annika, 2018. "Die Ministererlaubnis als Element der deutschen Wettbewerbsordnung: Eine theoretische und empirische Analyse," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 114, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:tuiedp:114

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Philippe Aghion & Nick Bloom & Richard Blundell & Rachel Griffith & Peter Howitt, 2005. "Competition and Innovation: an Inverted-U Relationship," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 120(2), pages 701-728.
    2. Arndt Christiansen and Wolfgang Kerber & Wolfgang Kerber, 2006. "Competition Policy with Optimally Differentiated Rules Instead of "Per se Rules vs. Rule of Reason"," Marburg Working Papers on Economics 200606, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    3. David Autor & David Dorn & Lawrence F. Katz & Christina Patterson & John Van Reenen, 2017. "Concentrating on the Fall of the Labor Share," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(5), pages 180-185, May.
    4. Conyon, Martin J. & Girma, Sourafel & Thompson, Steve & Wright, Peter W., 2002. "The impact of mergers and acquisitions on company employment in the United Kingdom," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 31-49, January.
    5. Kathrin Isele, 2003. "Fusionskontrolle im Standortwettbewerb," Volkswirtschaftliche Diskussionsbeiträge 51, Universität Potsdam, Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaftliche Fakultät.
    6. Oliver Budzinski, 2010. "An Institutional Analysis of the Enforcement Problems in Merger Control," Working Papers 101/10, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    7. Krakowski, Michael, 1989. "Gemeinwohlvorteile durch Großfusion?," Wirtschaftsdienst – Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftspolitik (1949 - 2007), ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 69(8), pages 368-368.
    8. David Margolis, 2006. "Should employment authorities worry about mergers and acquisitions?," Portuguese Economic Journal, Springer;Instituto Superior de Economia e Gestao, vol. 5(2), pages 167-194, August.
    9. repec:oup:jcomle:v:2:y:2006:i:2:p:215-244. is not listed on IDEAS
    10. Federico, Giulio & Langus, Gregor & Valletti, Tommaso, 2017. "A simple model of mergers and innovation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 136-140.
    11. Wolfgang Kerber, 2011. "Competition, Innovation and Maintaining Diversity through Competition Law," Chapters,in: Competition Policy and the Economic Approach, chapter 9 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    12. Gugler, Klaus & Yurtoglu, B. Burcin, 2004. "The effects of mergers on company employment in the USA and Europe," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(4), pages 481-502, April.
    13. Kenneth Arrow, 1962. "Economic Welfare and the Allocation of Resources for Invention," NBER Chapters,in: The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors, pages 609-626 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Paolo Fulghieri & Laurie Simon Hodrick, 2006. "Synergies and Internal Agency Conflicts: The Double-Edged Sword of Mergers," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 15(3), pages 549-576, September.
    15. Budzinski, Oliver & Christiansen, Andt, 2005. "Competence Allocation in the EU Competition Policy System as an Interest-Driven Process," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 25(03), pages 313-337, December.
    16. Jonathan Baker, 2008. "" Dynamic Competition" Does Not Excuse Monopolization," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 4.
    17. Havrylyshyn, Oli, 1990. "Trade Policy and Productivity Gains in Developing Countries: A Survey of the Literature," World Bank Research Observer, World Bank Group, vol. 5(1), pages 1-24, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Budzinski, Oliver & Stöhr, Annika, 2018. "Competition policy reform in Europe and Germany - Institutional change in the light of digitization," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 117, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.

    More about this item


    Ministererlaubnis; Wettbewerbspolitik; Zusammenschlusskontrolle; Mergers & Acquisitions; Wettbewerbsökonomik; Antitrust; Recht & Ökonomik; Fusionskontrolle; Wettbewerbsordnung; Wirtschaftspolitik;

    JEL classification:

    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General
    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • B52 - Schools of Economic Thought and Methodology - - Current Heterodox Approaches - - - Historical; Institutional; Evolutionary
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:zbw:tuiedp:114. 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: (ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics). General contact details of provider: .

    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.