IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cpr/ceprdp/7454.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

How to Measure the Deterrence Effects of Merger Policy: Frequency or Composition?

Author

Listed:
  • Barros, Pedro
  • Seldeslachts, Jo
  • Clougherty, Joseph A.

Abstract

We show that the number of merger proposals (frequency-based deterrence) is a more appropriate indicator of underlying changes in merger policy than the relative anti-competitiveness of merger proposals (composition-based deterrence). This has strong implications for the empirical analysis of the deterrence effects of merger policy enforcement, and potential implications regarding how to reduce anti-competitive merger proposals.

Suggested Citation

  • Barros, Pedro & Seldeslachts, Jo & Clougherty, Joseph A., 2009. "How to Measure the Deterrence Effects of Merger Policy: Frequency or Composition?," CEPR Discussion Papers 7454, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    • Handle: RePEc:cpr:ceprdp:7454
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://cepr.org/publications/DP7454
    Download Restriction: CEPR Discussion Papers are free to download for our researchers, subscribers and members. If you fall into one of these categories but have trouble downloading our papers, please contact us at subscribers@cepr.org
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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, August.
    2. Seldeslachts, Jo & Clougherty, Joseph A. & Barros, Pedro Pita, 2007. "Remedy for Now but Prohibit for Tomorrow: The Deterrence Effects of Merger Policy Tools," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 218, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    3. 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.
    4. Barros, Pedro Pita, 2003. "Looking behind the curtain--effects from modernization of European Union competition policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 613-624, August.
    5. 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).
    6. Jonathan B. Baker, 2003. "The Case for Antitrust Enforcement," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 27-50, Fall.
    7. Sah, Raaj K, 1991. "Social Osmosis and Patterns of Crime," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(6), pages 1272-1295, December.
    8. Morgan, Eleanor, 2002. "Steering Mergers Through the EU's Regulatory Rocks:: Remedies Under the EU Merger Control Regulation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 20(5), pages 549-561, October.
    9. Block, Michael Kent & Nold, Frederick Carl, 1981. "The Deterrent Effect of Antitrust Enforcement," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(3), pages 429-445, June.
    10. 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.
    11. D’Antoni, Massimo & Galbiati, Roberto, 2007. "A signaling theory of nonmonetary sanctions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 204-218.
    12. Feinberg, Robert M, 1980. "Antitrust Enforcement and Subsequent Price Behavior," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 62(4), pages 609-612, November.
    13. Bruce Lyons & Andrei Medvedev, 2007. "Bargaining over Remedies in Merger Regulation," Working Papers 07-3, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia.
    14. Eleanor Morgan, 2001. "A Decade of EC Merger Control," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 451-473.
    15. Robert W. Crandall & Clifford Winston, 2005. "Does antitrust policy improve consumer welfare? Assessing the evidence," Chapters, in: Colin Robinson (ed.), Governments, Competition and Utility Regulation, chapter 2, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    16. Paul L. Joskow, 2002. "Transaction Cost Economics, Antitrust Rules, and Remedies," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 95-116, April.
    17. Block, Michael K & Feinstein, Jonathan S, 1986. "The Spillover Effect of Antitrust Enforcement," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(1), pages 122-131, February.
    18. Eckbo, B Espen, 1992. "Mergers and the Value of Antitrust Deterrence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(3), pages 1005-1029, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Lars Sorgard & Andreea Cosnita-Langlais, 2013. "Enforcement vs Deterrence in Merger Control: Can Remedies Lead to Lower Welfare?," Post-Print hal-01668416, HAL.
    2. Stephen Davies & Peter Ormosi, 2013. "The Impact of Competition Policy: What are the Known Unknowns?," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2013-07, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    3. Redkina, Anastasia (Редькина, Анастасия) & Lagodyuk, Ekaterina (Лагодюк, Екатерина), 2016. "The deterrent effect of Russian control of mergers: An Empirical Study [Сдерживающие Эффекты Российского Контроля Слияний: Эмпирическое Исследование]," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 1, pages 79-104, February.
    4. Cosnita-Langlais Andreea & Sørgard Lars, 2018. "Enforcement and Deterrence in Merger Control: The Case of Merger Remedies," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(3), pages 1-22, November.

    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. Jo Seldeslachts & Joseph A. Clougherty & Pedro Pita Barros, 2007. "Remedy for Now but Prohibit for Tomorrow: The Deterrence Effects of Merger Policy Tools," CIG Working Papers SP II 2007-02, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    2. 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, August.
    3. Clougherty, Joseph A. & Duso, Tomaso & Lee, Miyu & Seldeslachts, Jo, 2016. "Effective European Antitrust : Does EC Merger Policy Generate Deterrence?," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 54(4), pages 1884-1903.
    4. Joseph A. Clougherty & Jo Seldeslachts, 2013. "The Deterrence Effects of US Merger Policy Instruments," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(5), pages 1114-1144, October.
    5. Barbara Baarsma & Ron Kemp & Rob Noll & Jo Seldeslachts, 2012. "Let’s Not Stick Together: Anticipation of Cartel and Merger Control in The Netherlands," De Economist, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 357-376, December.
    6. Duso, Tomaso & Gugler, Klaus & Yurtoglu, Burcin B., 2011. "How effective is European merger control?," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(7), pages 980-1006.
    7. Jing Yan, 2018. "Do Merger Laws Deter Cross‐Border Mergers and Acquisitions?," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 376-393, September.
    8. Redkina, Anastasia (Редькина, Анастасия) & Lagodyuk, Ekaterina (Лагодюк, Екатерина), 2016. "The deterrent effect of Russian control of mergers: An Empirical Study [Сдерживающие Эффекты Российского Контроля Слияний: Эмпирическое Исследование]," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 1, pages 79-104, February.
    9. Lars Sorgard & Andreea Cosnita-Langlais, 2013. "Enforcement vs Deterrence in Merger Control: Can Remedies Lead to Lower Welfare?," Post-Print hal-01668416, HAL.
    10. Tomaso Duso & Klaus Gugler & Florian Szücs, 2013. "An Empirical Assessment of the 2004 EU Merger Policy Reform," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 123(11), pages 596-619, November.
    11. Cosnita-Langlais Andreea & Sørgard Lars, 2018. "Enforcement and Deterrence in Merger Control: The Case of Merger Remedies," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 14(3), pages 1-22, November.
    12. Cosnita-Langlais, Andreea & Tropeano, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "Do remedies affect the efficiency defense? An optimal merger-control analysis," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 58-66.
    13. Kalyn Coatney & Jesse Tack, 2014. "The Impacts of an Antitrust Investigation: A Case Study in Agriculture," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(4), pages 423-441, June.
    14. Stephen Davies & Franco Mariuzzo & Peter L. Ormosi, 2018. "Quantifying The Deterrent Effect Of Anticartel Enforcement," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(4), pages 1933-1949, October.
    15. Stefania Grezzana, 2016. "Lost In Time And Space: The Deterrence Effect Of Cartel Busts On The Retail Gasoline Market," Anais do XLIII Encontro Nacional de Economia [Proceedings of the 43rd Brazilian Economics Meeting] 158, ANPEC - Associação Nacional dos Centros de Pós-Graduação em Economia [Brazilian Association of Graduate Programs in Economics].
    16. Brady, Una & M. Feinberg, Robert, 2000. "An examination of stock-price effects of EU merger control policy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 18(6), pages 885-900, August.
    17. Michael Cichello & Douglas Lamdin, 2006. "Event Studies and the Analysis of Antitrust," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 13(2), pages 229-245.
    18. Dissanaike, Gishan & Drobetz, Wolfgang & Momtaz, Paul P., 2020. "Competition Policy and the Profitability of Corporate Acquisitions," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).
    19. Damien Neven & Hans Zenger, 2008. "Ex Post Evaluation of Enforcement: A Principal-Agent Perspective," De Economist, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 477-490, December.
    20. Günster, Andrea & van Dijk, Mathijs, 2016. "The impact of European antitrust policy: Evidence from the stock market," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 20-33.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Antitrust; Deterrence; Merger policy;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General
    • L49 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Other

    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:cpr:ceprdp:7454. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cepr.org .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.