The aim of this paper is to describe in detail a set of newly developed indicators of the quality of competition policy, Competition Policy Indexes, or CPIs. The CPIs measure the deterrence properties of a competition policy in a jurisdiction, where for competition policy we mean the antitrust legislation, including the merger control provisions, and its enforcement. The CPIs incorporate data on how the key features of a competition policy regime score against a benchmark of generally-agreed best practices and summarise them so as to allow crosscountry and cross-time comparisons. The CPIs have been calculated for a sample of 13 OECD jurisdictions over the period 1995-2005. ; Ziel dieses Beitrag ist die umfassende Beschreibung von neu entwickelten Indikatoren über die Qualität von wettbewerbspolitischen Systemen: die so genannten "Competition Policy Indexes" (CPIs). Die CPIs messen die Abschreckungsmerkmale der Wettbewerbspolitik in einem Staat oder, genauer gesagt, in einer Gebietskörperschaft. Unter Wettbewerbspolitik ist hierbei sowohl das Kartellrecht als auch seine Vollstreckung definiert, wobei auch die Fusionskontrolle einbezogen ist. Die CPIs bauen auf "harten" Daten über die zentralen Merkmale eines wettbewerbspolitischen Regimes auf. Diese werden mit Orientierungswerten verglichen, welche anhand von in der Literatur und Praxis allgemein bewährten Verfahren definiert sind. Schließlich werden sie in Indikatoren zusammengefasst, welche einen internationalen Vergleich über die Zeit erlauben. Diese Indikatoren wurden für eine Stichprobe von 13 OECD Gebietskörperschaften (12 OECD Länder und die Europäische Union) für die Zeitspanne 1995-2005 berechnet.
The aim of this paper is to describe in detail a set of newly developed indicators of the quality of competition policy, Competition Policy Indexes, or CPIs. The CPIs measure the deterrence properties of a competition policy in a jurisdiction, where for competition policy we mean the antitrust legislation, including the merger control provisions, and its enforcement. The CPIs incorporate data on how the key features of a competition policy regime score against a benchmark of generally-agreed best practices and summarise them so as to allow cross-country and cross-time comparisons. The CPIs have been calculated for a sample of 13 OECD jurisdictions over the period 1995-2005.
The Indonesian economy was dominated by the government in the decades of the 1970s and 1980s through its control of major mining, manufacturing and agricultural activities. Hill (2000) estimates that as much as 40% of non-agricultural GDP was accounted for by government entities in the late 1980s There were still a lot of government corporations up until the late 1980s and early 1990s and governmental control over the banking system was still substantial.
Competition policy and law, appropriately implemented and enforced, are essential to the optimal functioning of a market-orientated economy. International organizations, including the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and regional groupings such as the European Union (EU), the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), all emphasize, to a greater or lesser extent, the need for a pro-competition policy to be adopted, to promote industrial efficiency and economic growth. The unspoken, but implicit, precondition for an effective competition policy is that the national government is ideologically committed to markets as the primary economic regulator, rather than to state-centred planning, or excessive public sector intervention to promote 'national champions'. For markets to function, there must be competition. The intriguing question is whether the Chinese authorities now accept this ideological position, and the need for a competition law to enhance domestic competition, after almost 30 years of economic reform. This brief will go on to explore the validity of the assertion that the adoption of a Chinese competition law, in present conditions, may be inappropriate, and might, in fact, impede the creation of a more economically efficient market.
We show that, in the case when innovations are for sale, increased product market competition, captured by reduced product market profits, can increase the incentives for innovations. The reason is that the incentive to innovate depends on the acquisition price which, in turn, might increase despite firms in the market making lower profits. We also show that stricter, but not too strict, merger and cartel policies tend to increase the incentive for innovations for sale by ensuring the bidding competition for the innovation and by increasing the relative profitability of being the most efficient firm in the industry. Moreover, it is shown that increased intensity of competition can increase the relative profitability of innovation for sale, relative to innovation for entry.
This paper develops a proposal for an international multilevel competition policy system, which draws on the insights of the analysis of multilevel systems of institutions. In doing so, it targets to contribute bridging a gap in the current world economic order, i.e. the lack of supranational governance of private international restrictions to market competition. Such governance can effectively be designed against the background of a combination of the well-known nondiscrimination principle and a lead jurisdiction model. Put very briefly, competition policy on the global level restricts itself to the selection and appointment of appropriate lead jurisdictions for concrete cross-border antitrust cases, while the substantive treatment remains within the competence of the existing national and regional antitrust regimes.
This paper develops a proposal for an international multilevel competition policy system, which draws on the insights of the analysis of multilevel systems of institutions. In doing so, it targets to contribute to bridge a gap in the current world economic order, i.e. the supranational governance of private international restrictions to market competition. Such a governance can effectively be designed against the background of a combination of the well-known nondiscrimination principle and a lead jurisdiction model. Put very briefly, competition policy on the global level restricts itself to the selection and appointment of appropriate lead jurisdictions for concrete cross-border antitrust cases, while the substantive treatment remains within the competence of the existing national and regional-supranational antitrust regimes.
Competition policy has seen quite significant changes over the past years. With the reform of Merger Control and the application of Article 81 (agreements) an 'effects-based, economic approach' was formally introduced by the Commission. Two other areas of competition policy are under discussion, namely state aid control and the application of Article 82 (abuse of a dominant position). It will be one of the key questions whether and to what extent an 'economic approach' should be followed here too. Some issues of competition policy with regard to industrial policy will be analysed in view of this changes. As the 'economic approach' is based on neoclassical market form analysis and welfare economics, I will try to make these approaches more comprehensive before I point to some problems which occur if the 'theory' were to be applied in real cases.
Regulatory reform and competition policy are two important and inter-related areas of regulatory policy and public administration. Both can play a key role in improving the quality of regulation, and creating healthy and competitive markets and an attractive investment climate. This in turn leads to greater economic growth, employment and incomes. Part one of this paper discusses definitions and key issues associated with regulation, regulatory quality, and competition policy. This discussion focuses on competition policy as it relates to restrictions on competition and also pro-competitive regulation, which involves protecting consumers through economic regulation. Part two of this paper considers institutions and processes for implementing regulatory quality and competition policy agendas, including regulatory agencies, regulatory reform bodies, competition authorities and broader regulation-making processes. Part three notes the importance of assessing competition policy issues on a case-by-case basis and identifies the main objectives and features of competition policy. This includes a discussion about when competition policy issues are likely to play an important role in regulatory assessment and reform. Part four considers mechanisms for coordinating- where appropriate-competition policy and regulatory quality assessments, including undertaking competition assessments and providing advice to decision makers.
In the process of globalization, international convergence of competition legislation has steadily gained importance. Yet, specific aspects of European history gave capital markets, corporate governance and competition policies a special flavor. Historically grown peculiarities have to be taken into account when it comes to evaluate actual policy decisions. In this paper the focus is on four phases of European competition policy. Prior to World War I banks gained a strong position thanks to block holdings, proxy votes, and a high degree of capital intermediation. Closed market structures prevail to our days. The interwar period was characterized by attempts to overcome the economic disintegration by international cartels. This experience influenced post World War II institutions like the European Community for Coal and Steel. After 1945, attempts by the U.S. to provide for a strict antitrust regime in Western Europe had very limited success. Yet, from the late 1950s on, the EEC saw strict competition policy as a vehicle for market integration. While during the 1970s and 1980s in the U.S. antitrust was counterbalanced by efficiency considerations, in Europe a policy aiming for competitive structures gained weight. Those who plead for convergence between European and U.S. competition policies should, however, be aware of the fact that due to closed markets and regional protectionism in Europe antitrust laws need to play a more important role to provide for an efficient economic system.
This paper explores the relationship between competition policy, experience of the application of competition policy, the intensity of local competition and the standard of living. Perception data from the World Economic Forum is used to measure the intensity of local competition. Richer and larger countries in general introduce competition policy earlier than smaller and poorer countries, and industrialized countries earlier than Latin American, African, transition and Asian countries, in this order. A regression analysis for a sample of 101 countries reveals that experience and overall government effectiveness explain a substantial part of the perception of the effectiveness of antitrust policy. During the first years of (new) competition legislation the effectiveness of application improves rapidly, whereas very old competition agencies make little further improvement of their application performance after a certain time. The effectiveness of antitrust policy has a significant influence on the intensity of local competition. The size of the economy also has a significant impact on the intensity of local competition, whereas external protection does not. These results indicate that competition legislation and experience of the application of competition legislation have a large impact on the level of competition in an economy, whereas the influence of external protection is not clear. In countries with a high intensity of local competition the standard of living is higher than in countries with a low intensity of local competition.
Die Regierungen in der Europäischen Union retten Unternehmen in Schwierigkeiten durch staatliche Rettungs- und Umstrukturierungsbeihilfen. Diese Dissertation besteht aus drei Kapiteln, die solche Beihilfen analysieren. Im ersten Kapitel nutze ich Daten von 86 Fällen aus den Jahren 1995-2003 um zu prüfen, wie wirksam die Beihilfen bei der Konkursprävention sind. Es gibt drei Ergebnisse. Erstens steigt die geschätzte diskrete hazard rate in den ersten vier Jahren nach der Subvention und sinkt danach, was nahelegt, dass einige Sanierungen den Konkurs eher verzögern als verhindern. Zweitens, Regierungen favorisieren staatliche Unternehmen bei Beihilfeentscheidungen, obwohl diese keine besseren Überlebenschancen haben. Drittens, die Wahl, ob Rettungs- oder Umstrukturierungsbeihilfe gewärt wird, ist eine endogene Variable in der Analyse. Wenn man sie als exogen betrachtet, unterschätzt man die Auswirkungen auf die Konkurswahrscheinlichkeit. Das zweite Kapitel ist eine Studie über die Auswirkungen von Bailouts auf Marktstruktur und Wohlfahrt in einem internationalen, asymmetrischen Cournot -- Duopol. Es wird gezeigt, dass die optimale Beihilfe positiv ist, auch wenn der Marktaustritt einer Firma nicht verhindert werden kann. Der Grund hierfür ist ein strategischer Effekt, der die effizientere Firma zu einer zusätzlichen kostenreduzierenden Maßnahme veranlasst. Wird der Marktaustritt verhindert, ist Effizienz geringer. Das dritte Kapitel enthält empirische Belege der politischen, institutionellen und wirtschaftlichen Determinanten der Sanierungsubventionspolitik. Ich nutze einen neuen Datensatz über Entscheidungen über Rettungs- und Umstrukturierungsbeihilfen während der Jahre 1995-2003 zusammen mit Informationen über Wahlergebnisse in den Europäischen Ländern. Das wichtigste Ergebnis ist, dass die Beihilfen in Ländern mit Mehrheitswahlsystem wahrscheinlicher sind, insbesondere während der Jahre vor Wahlen. ; Governments in the European Union bail out firms in distress by granting Rescue and Restructuring Subsidies. This thesis consists of three chapters analyzing European bailouts. In the first chapter, I use data from 86 cases during the years 1995-2003 to examine the effectiveness of bailouts in preventing bankruptcy. The results are threefold. First, the estimated discrete-time hazard rate increases during the first four years after the subsidy and drops after that, suggesting that some bailouts only delayed exit instead of preventing it. Second, governments'' bailout decisions favored state-owned firms, even though state-owned firms did not outperform private ones in the survival chances. Third, subsidy choice is an endogenous variable and treating it as exogenous underestimates its impact on the bankruptcy probability. Policy implications are discussed in the chapter. The second chapter is a study of the effects of bailouts on market structure and welfare in an international asymmetric Cournot duopoly. I show that the subsidy is positive also when it fails to prevent the exit. The reason is a strategic effect, which forces the more efficient firm to make additional cost-reducing effort. When the exit is prevented, allocative and productive efficiencies are lower than in case of exit. The third chapter provides evidence of political, institutional and economic determinants of bailout policies. I use a new data set based on rescue and restructuring aid decisions during the years 1995-2003 merged with information about electoral outcomes in European countries. The main finding is that in countries with majoritarian democratic institutions bailouts are more likely, in particular during years preceding elections. Since bailouts are a targeted fiscal policy, the evidence supports the theory of Persson and Tabellini (2000) predicting that electoral systems shape incentives for fiscal policy choices.
Competition policy starts by shaping a legislative framework. This is aimed to establish boundaries for conducting competition and also sets limits of licit and illicit demarcation, for competitive and anticompetitive practices. The Romanian Competition Law has a divalent approach and it aims to provide specific behavioral conditions in order to stimulate and protect free-market competition, with the ultimate goal of developing a balanced, efficient and competitive economy. Our country's Competition policy is based on punishing the behavior. There are three such types of anti-competitive behavior, namely: agreements between undertakings, abuse of dominant position and mergers and other concentrations between undertakings. Recent Practice proved that this "enforcement-conduct-punishment" structure is not necessary the best way to address competition and it is high time for authorities to switch both regulation and enforcement of competition from the "classical perspective" towards concepts like "competition advocacy" and "soft power" and give competition policy a new, reshaped face.
In this thesis I analyse the impact of the European Union (EU) on domestic policies in Poland when it was a candidate country for EU membership. The impact of the European Union on domestic policies is called Europeanisation. I examined how Poland complied with EU accession criteria and responded to Europeanisation. EU membership and technical pre-accession assistance depended upon compliance with accession criteria, i.e. political, economic and acquis criteria as laid down by the Copenhagen European Council in June 1993. In particular, the acquis criterion was important as it implied the transposition of the entire Community law, called acquis communautaire, into national law. ; TARA (Trinity's Access to Research Archive) has a robust takedown policy. Please contact us if you have any concerns: rssadmin@tcd.ie
This paper reviews the evolution of competition policy during the 20th century. It identifies the major principles underlying these policies and shows that two major challenges will have to be faced in the near future. On one hand, the technological changes introduced by the so-called 'new economy' are rapidly replacing some old rules, by reshaping the concepts of monopoly power and market dominance. On the other hand, internationalisation of economic boundaries is creating a greater need of policy coordination, not only between the US and the EU, but a global level as well. These ideas will define the evolution of competition policy in the next decades. ; Este artículo revisa la evolución de la política de defensa de la competencia durante el siglo veinte. Su objetivo es presentar los principios básicos de dicha política e identificar los principales desafíos que deberán ser abordados en el futuro. Por un lado, el cambio tecnológico introducido en la denominada "nueva economía" obliga a reemplazar algunas reglas tradicionales, redefiniendo los conceptos de monopolio y poder de mercado. Por otro, la internacionalización de la economía genera la necesidad de una coordinación global de las actuaciones de las agencias de la competencia y no sólo entre EE.UU. y la Unión Europea. Estas dos ideas definirán la evolución de la política de defensa de la competencia en las próximas décadas.