ADVERTISEMENT

If you are seeing this message, you may be experiencing temporary network problems. Please wait a few minutes and refresh the page. If the problem persists, you may wish to report it to your local Network Manager.

It is also possible that your web browser is not configured or not able to display style sheets. In this case, although the visual presentation will be degraded, the site should continue to be functional. We recommend using the latest version of Microsoft or Mozilla web browser to help minimise these problems.

Wiley InterScience

Economic Policy

Economic Policy

Volume 21 Issue 48, Pages 741 - 791

Published Online: 2 Oct 2006

© 2010 Centre for Economic Policy Research, Center for Economic Studies, Maison des Sciences de l'Homme



< Previous Abstract

Save Article to My Profile      Download Citation      Request Permissions

Abstract |  References  |  Full Text: HTML, PDF (Size: 301K)  | Related Articles | Citation Tracking

Competition economics and antitrust in Europe
Damien J. Neven 1
  1 Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva and CEPR
Copyright © CEPR, CES, MSH, 2006

SUMMARY

Abstract1. INTRODUCTION2. ECONOMIC INPUTS3. ECONOMIC INPUT IN THE CASE LAW AND POLICY4. THE PROCEDURE: A PERSPECTIVE FROM LAW AND ECONOMICSREFERENCES
 

Competition economics and antitrust in Europe

This paper aims to assess the influence that economic analysis has had on competition policy in the European Union over the last twenty years. Economists are increasingly used in antitrust cases; the annual turnover of the main economic consultancy firms has increased by a factor of 20 since the early 1990s and currently exceeds £20 million. This is about 15% of the aggregate fees earned on antitrust cases, a proportion close to that in the US. The economic resources mobilized by the EU Commission are, however, an order of magnitude smaller and this imbalance is a source of concern. The legal framework and the case decisions have also been influenced by economic analysis in important ways. For instance, the analysis of agreements between firms has increasingly focused on effects; the analysis of the factors that determine effective competition has become more sophisticated; the concept of collective dominance has been progressively developed in terms of the theory of collusion in repeated interactions, and quantitative methods have become more important. However, enforcement has sometimes appealed to economic reasoning in flawed or speculative ways; the paper discusses procedural reasons why this may have occurred. This paper assesses the system of evidence gathering implemented by the Commission in the light of the law and economics literature. It is concluded that while the reforms recently implemented by the Commission do address the main weaknesses of this system, they may still not allow for the most effective development of economic theory and evidence in actual cases.

— Damien J. Neven


DIGITAL OBJECT IDENTIFIER (DOI)
10.1111/j.1468-0327.2006.00170.x About DOI

Related Articles

  • Find other articles like this in Wiley InterScience
  • Find articles in Wiley InterScience written by any of the authors

Wiley InterScience is a member of CrossRef.

Cross Ref Member


IT'S TIME TO RENEW

ECOP

It’s time to renew your subscription to Economic Policy.

Click here for 2010 subscription rates and to renew securely online.