Review of Industrial Organization

, Volume 45, Issue 4, pp 399–415 | Cite as

Recent Developments at DG Competition: 2013–2014

  • Benno Buehler
  • Gábor Koltay
  • Xavier Boutin
  • Massimo Motta


The Directorate General for Competition at the European Commission enforces competition law in the areas of antitrust, merger control, and state aids. In 2013–2014 important antitrust decisions (Samsung and Motorola) were in the area of standard essential patents. In merger control the European Commission carried out an ex-post evaluation of past mergers in the INEOS/Solvay case in order to obtain valuable insights for the merger under review. In state aid, as a part of the State Aid Modernisation programme, guidelines were prepared to help EU member states to design and carry out ex post assessments of state aid schemes.


Antitrust European Commission Ex-post evaluation Merger control State aid Standard essential patents 



We are grateful to several members of the Chief Economist Team and other members of the Directorate General for Competition of the European Commission for their contributions on the issues covered in this paper. We are especially indebted to Giulio Federico, Andrea Amelio, Andrea Cilea, Ocello Eleonora, Elżbieta Głowicka, Géza Sápi and Vincent Verouden. The views expressed in this paper are the authors’ own, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Directorate General for Competition or of the European Commission.


  1. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Ashenfelter, O., & Hosken, D. (2010). The effect of mergers on consumer prices: Evidence from five selected case studies. Journal of Law and Economics, 53(3), 417–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bakhshi, H., Edwards, J., Roper, S., Scully, J., Shaw, D., Morley, L., et al. (2013). Creative credits, a randomized controlled industrial policy experiment. Report for Nesta.
  4. Buehler, B. (2013). No-challenge clauses in patent licensing—Blessing or curse?. Mimeo (Unpublished).Google Scholar
  5. Crépon, B., Duflo, E., Gurgand, M., Rathelot, R., & Zamora, P. (2013). Do labor market policies have displacement effects? Evidence from a clustered randomized experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 128(2), 531–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Criscuolo, C., Martin, R., Overman, H. G., & Van Reenen, J. (2012). The causal effects of an industrial policy. CEPR discussion papers 8818.Google Scholar
  7. De la Mano, M., & Neven, D. (2010). Economics at DG COMP 2009–2010. The Review of Industrial Organization, 37(4), 309–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duflo, E., & Kremer, M. (2005). Use of randomization in the evaluation of development effectiveness. In O. Feinstein, G. K. Ingram, & G. K. Pitman (Eds.), Evaluating Development Effectiveness (Vol. 7, pp. 205–232). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Duflo, E., Glennerster, R., & Kremer, M. (2007). Using randomization in development economics research: A toolkit. In T. P. Schultz & J. A. Strauss (Eds.), Handbook of development economics (pp. 3895–3962). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  10. Duranton, G., Gobillon, L., & Overman, H. G. (2011). Assessing the effects of local taxation using microgeographic data. Economic Journal, 121(555), 1017–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Einiö, E. (2013). R&D Subsidies and company performance: Evidence from geographic variation in government funding based on the ERDF population-density rule. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 96(4), 710–728.Google Scholar
  12. Farrell, J., Hayes, J., Shapiro, C., & Sullivan, T. (2007). Standard setting, patents and hold-up. Antitrust Law Journal, 74(3), 603–670.Google Scholar
  13. Farrell, J., & Shapiro, F. (2008). How strong are weak patents? American Economic Review, 98(4), 1347–1369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Givord, P. (2010). Méthodes économétriques pour l’évaluation de politiques publiques. WPD3E n\(^{\circ }\) G2010–08.Google Scholar
  15. Givord, P., Rathelot, R., & Sillard, P. (2013). Place-based tax exemptions and displacement effects: An evaluation of the Zones Franches Urbaines program. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 43(1), 151–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gobillon, L., Magnac, T., & Selod, H. (2012). Do unemployed workers benefit from enterprise zones? The French experience. Journal of Public Economics, 96(9–10), 881–892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hastings, J. (2004). Vertical relationships and competition in retail gasoline markets: Empirical evidence from contract changes in Southern California. American Economic Review, 94, 317–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunter, G., Leonard, G., & Olley, S. (2008). Merger retrospective studies: A review. Antitrust, 23, 34–41.Google Scholar
  19. Imbens, G., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(1), 5–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kwoka, J. (2013). Does merger control work? A retrospective on U.S. enforcement actions and merger outcomes. Antitrust Law Journal, 78, 619–650.Google Scholar
  21. Martini, A., & Bondonio, D. (2012). Counterfactual impact evaluation of cohesion policy: Impact and cost effectiveness of investment subsidies in Italy. DG Regio: Report for European Commission.Google Scholar
  22. Rathelot, R., & Sillard, P. (2008). The importance of local corporate taxes in business location decisions: Evidence from French micro data. Economic Journal, 118(527), 499–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Taylor, C., & Hosken, D. (2007). The economic effects of the Marathon–Ashland joint venture: The importance of industry supply shocks and vertical market structure. Journal of Industrial Economics, 55, 419–451.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© European Union 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Benno Buehler
    • 1
  • Gábor Koltay
    • 1
  • Xavier Boutin
    • 1
  • Massimo Motta
    • 1
  1. 1.Directorate General for Competition, European CommissionBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations