Industry Characteristics and Anti-Competitive Behavior: Evidence from the European Commission’s Decisions
- 186 Downloads
We analyze all the European Commission’s decisions on antitrust cases between 1999 and 2004 using a unique dataset that also contains information on all the cases that were filed for the Commission’s consideration but were never pursued. This data allow us to determine whether there is any type of bias in the selection process followed by the Commission when deciding which cases to pursue until a final decision is reached. We find that the selection of cases is not random and that it is quite efficient but not very significant. We also find that the economic literature criteria are important for the Commission’s decisions.
KeywordsAntitrust European Commission Selection bias
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Ahn, C. (2002). Competition, innovation and productivity growth: A review of theory and evidence. OECD Document Number ECO/WKP(2002)3.Google Scholar
- Bergman, M. A., Jakobsson, M., & Razo C. (2003). An econometric analysis of the european commission’s merger decisions. mimeo.Google Scholar
- Davies S., Driffield N.F., Clarke R. (1999) Monopoly in the UK: What determines whether the MMC finds against the investigated firms. The Journal of Industrial Economics 47(3): 263–283Google Scholar
- Davies S., & Lyons B. (1996). European union: Structure, strategy, and the competitive mechanism. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (1994). The economic interpenetration between the European Union and Eastern Europe. European Economy, Reports and Studies n°6.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (2000). Competitiveness Report 1999. Brussels.Google Scholar
- European Commission. (2001). Competitiveness Report 2000. Brussels.Google Scholar
- Heckman J.J. (1976) The common structure of statistical models of truncation, sample selection, and limited dependent variables and a simple estimator of such models. Annals of Economic and Social Measurement 5: 475–492Google Scholar
- Ivaldi, M., Jullien B., Rey P., Seabright P., & Tirole J. (2003). The economics of tacit collusion. Final Report for DG Competition, European Commission.Google Scholar
- Motta M. (2004) Competition policy, theory and practice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
- OECD Report. (1989). Predatory pricing. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/54/2375661.pdf.
- Peneder, M. (1999). Intangible investment and human resources, the new WIFO taxonomy of manufacturing industries. WIFO Working Papers #114, May.Google Scholar
- Sutton J. (1991) Sunk costs and market structure. MIT Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
- Symeonidis, G. (2003). In which industries is collusion more likely? evidence from the UK. Journal of Industrial Economics, March 2003.Google Scholar
- Wooldridge J. M. (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp 560–566Google Scholar