Cover -- Contents -- List of Figures and Tables -- Acknowledgments -- List of Abbreviations -- 1 Introduction: Globalization and Public Policy -- 2 Development of European Competition Policy -- 3 EU Merger Review -- 4 The EU and Anticompetitive Practices -- 5 State Aids -- 6 The EU and Global Competition Policy -- 7 Competition Policy in the 21st Century -- Notes -- References -- Index
The competition policy pursued by the European Commission has a direct impact on the daily life of the citizens of the European Union. The reduction of telephone charges, wideraccess to air transport and the possibility of buying a car in the EU country in which prices are lowest are tangible results. Other, less visible, areas of Community competition policy also produce positive effects for the public. For example, merger control ensures a diversity of mass-market consumer goods and low prices for the final consumer. Likewise, by contributing to economic and social cohesion, the monitoring of state aid helps to promote viable and durable jobs throughout the Union. Whether they be consumers, savers, users of public services, employees or taxpayers, the Union's citizens enjoy the fruits of competition policy in the various aspects of their everyday life.
Defence date: 03 October 2018 ; Examining Board: Prof. David K. Levine, EUI (Supervisor); Prof. Giacomo Calzolari, EUI; Prof. Juan-José Ganuza, UPF and Barcelona GSE; Prof. Gerard Llobet, CEMFI ; The aim of this thesis is to investigate cartels and the impact of competition policy from various angles. Chapter 1, joint with Joan-Ramon Borrell, José Manuel Ordóñez-de-Haro and Juan Luis Jiménez, analyzes the relationship between cartel life cycles and business cycles. We analyze the relationship between cartel startups/breakups and economic cycles using a dataset of cartels sanctioned by the European Commission. Results show that cartels are more likely to be formed when the business has evolved positively in the previous months and managers expect prices to decline, but that cartels also tend to breakup when the business has evolved positively. Upturns in firm-specific business cycles appear to cause cartel turnovers: existing cartels die while new ones are set up. Chapter 2 aims at obtaining a precise measure of how much firms benefit from collusion. I evaluate the causal effect of being a cartel member on the revenues and profits of cartelized firms, using comparable non-collusive firms as control group. A dataset of discovered cartel cases in Spain from 1990 to 2014 and an alternative dataset of firms' balance sheets are used. Results show that firms increase their revenues, on average, between 19% and 26% due to the collusive agreement, while no significant effect is found on profits. Estimations by cartel duration demonstrate that the members of long-lasting cartels not only increase their revenues (29%−50%), but also their profits more than two times. Further analysis shows that cartels that are profitable from the beginning tend to last longer and do not apply for Leniency Programs. Chapter 3, joint with Joan-Ramon Borrell, Juan Luis Jiménez and José Manuel Ordóñezde-Haro, investigates how Leniency Programs destabilize cartels. We study the effect of the Leniency Program on cartel duration, cartel fines and on the years of investigation using a difference-in-differences program evaluation approach. Cartel cases discovered by the European Commission and the Spanish Competition Authority are analyzed. Results show a short-run effect of the Leniency Program: the detected cartels have longer duration than the ones in the control group. In the long-run, the program decreases cartel duration. On the other hand, no significant effect is found on fines, while the duration of the investigation decreases significantly around 0.8-1.3 years.
Operating a complex competition policy, the EU intends to ensure undistorted competition within the Single Market. Today, with competition being increasingly necessary for Europe in order to combat the challenges of globalisation, the global crisis has shed light on some of the existing weaknesses in the system, especially regarding consumer welfare. In this article, the author brings to light the importance of implementing an economic approach to competition policy. This approach offers more consumer protection as well as giving businesses the opportunity to freely choose the most profitable commercial practices available to them.
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.
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.
Only recently, competition authorities tend to agree on comparative advertising being helpful in promoting competition. They now encourage firms to use it. They reason that comparative advertising, if fair and not misleading, increases consumers' information about alternative brands. For this to work, comparative claims must be credible. Competition policy and legal practice are essential in making comparative advertising (directly and indirectly) informative. In this paper, first we provide a legal background of comparative advertising in in Europe and the US. Second, we provide an economic analysis of comparative advertising. Here, we discuss the ways comparative advertising can affect market outcomes. Third, we provide an analysis of some recent legal cases in Europe and the US. Overall, we focus on the scope of information transmission through comparative advertising and on the way antitrust laws affect it.
Only recently, competition authorities tend to agree on comparative advertising being helpful in promoting competition. They now encourage firms to use it. They reason that comparative advertising, if fair and not misleading, increases consumers' information about alternative brands. For this to work, comparative claims must be credible. Competition policy and legal practice are essential in making comparative advertising (directly and indirectly) informative. In this paper, first we provide a legal background of comparative advertising in in Europe and the US. Second, we provide an economic analysis of comparative advertising. Here, we discuss the ways comparative advertising can affect market outcomes. Third, we provide an analysis of some recent legal cases in Europe and the US. Overall, we focus on the scope of information transmission through comparative advertising and on the way antitrust laws affect it.
The Competition Policy Reform Bill 1995 is part of a national policy package which aims to free up competition in Australian markets. The objective is to systematically remove anti‐competitive behaviour so that efficiency is improved to the public benefit.While one can endorse the concept that economic efficiency is best served in a purely competitive market, where businesses can get on with their responsibilitiy to maximise profits, concerns exist as to whether it is possible to impose legislatively and unilaterally an economic principle or philosophy on a nation that will achieve its lofty objectives.These proposals were developed before the 1996 federal election.
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.