BazEkon - Biblioteka Główna Uniwersytetu Ekonomicznego w Krakowie

BazEkon home page

Meny główne

Autor
Kąkol Magdalena Katarzyna (Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin, Poland)
Tytuł
The Evolution of US Merger Control Policy - part 2 : 1974-2013
Źródło
Ekonomia i Prawo, 2014, t. 13, nr 3, s. 417-430, bibliogr. 29 poz.
Economics and Law
Słowa kluczowe
Fuzje i przejęcia, Historia gospodarcza, Prawodawstwo, Teoria konkurencji, Polityka antymonopolowa
Mergers and acquisitions, Economic history, Legislation, Competition theory, Antitrust policy
Uwagi
summ.
Kraj/Region
Stany Zjednoczone Ameryki
United States of America (USA)
Abstrakt
The aim of the study is to present the changes in US merger control policy at different stages of development of competition theories and views on pro- and anti-competitive effects of mergers (especially Harvard, Chicago, and Post-Chicago Schools of Competition). The research methods used in the study include literature review as well as the in-depth analysis of US legislation, antitrust agencies' enforcement policy and federal courts' adjudication practice with focus on changes in the economic analysis of mergers and their impact on market competition. This part of the study covers the period from the mid 1970s to the present time and comprises two stages of the development of US policy towards mergers. In the 1980s the Chicago School theories, efficiency primacy and minimum intervention principle prevailed in US antitrust policy. From the 1990s under the influence of Post-Chicago approach which no longer assumes that markets work perfectly the antitrust agencies have been more eager to intervene to block some (even vertical) mergers with potential anticompetitive effects (though the level of this intervention could be hardly compared with that of the 1960s). US merger enforcement policy has become more interdisciplinary with a more flexible approach to economic analysis as regards applied methodology which should be tailored to each transaction and supported by empirical evidence. Apart from consumer welfare its priority is protecting competitive process in the market. (original abstract)
Pełny tekst
Pokaż
Bibliografia
Pokaż
  1. Atkinson R.D., Audretsch D.B., Economic Doctrines and Approaches to Antitrust, The Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, Washington, January 2011.
  2. Bork R.H., The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself, Basic Books, New York 1978, reprinted with a New Introduction and Epilogue, 1993.
  3. CIA, The World Factbook, https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html (27.09.2013).
  4. Crane D.A., Chicago, Post-Chicago, and Neo-Chicago, "University of Chicago Law Review", Vol. 76/2009.
  5. Demsetz H., Economics as a Guide to Antitrust Regulation, "The Journal of Law and Economics", Vol. 19, Issue 2/1976, http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/466876.
  6. Eastman Kodak Co. v. Image. Technical Services, Inc., 504 U.S. 451 (1992).
  7. FTC, Horizontal Merger Investigation Data. Fiscal Years 1996-2011, Washington, January 2013.
  8. Gundlach G.T., Phillips J.M., Desrochers D.M., Antitrust and Marketing: A Primer and Call to Research, "Journal of Public Policy & Marketing", Vol. 21, Issue 2/2002.
  9. Hildebrand D., The Role of Economic Analysis in the EC Competition Rules, Second Edition, Kluwer Law International, The Hague, London, New York 2002.
  10. Horton T.J., The New United States Horizontal Merger Guidelines: Devolution, Evolu-tion, or Counterrevolution?, "Journal of European Competition Law & Practice", Vol. 2, No. 2/2011, http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jeclap/lpr005.
  11. Hovenkamp H., The reckoning of post-Chicago antitrust, [in:] A. Cucinotta, R. Pardolesi, R. van der Bergh, Post-Chicago Developments in Antitrust Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, Northampton 2002.
  12. Kobayashi B.H., Muris T.J., Chicago, Post-Chicago, and Beyond: Time to Let Go of the 20th Century, "George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper", No. 12-31/2012.
  13. Kovacic W.E., Shapiro C., Antitrust Policy: A Century of Economic and Legal Thinking, "Journal of Economic Perspectives", Vol. 14, No. 1/2000.
  14. Lande R.H., Chicago's False Foundation: Wealth Transfers (Not Just Efficiency) Should Guide Antitrust, "Antitrust Law Journal", Vol. 58/1989.
  15. Motta M., Competition Policy. Theory and Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2004.
  16. OECD, The Role of Efficiency Claims in Antitrust Proceedings, DAF/COMP(2012)23, Paris, 2 May 2013.
  17. Röller L.H., Stennek J., Verboven F., Efficiency Gains from Mergers, [in:] The Efficiency Defence and the European System of Merger Control, "European Economy. Reports and Studies", No. 5/2001.
  18. Royall S.M., Symposium: Post-Chicago Economics - Editor's Note, "Antitrust Law Journal", Vol. 63, Issue 2/1995.
  19. Sullivan L., Post-Chicago Economics: Economists, Lawyers, Judges, and Enforcement Officials in a Less Determinate World, "Antitrust Law Journal", Vol. 63, Issue 2/1995.
  20. United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 415 U.S. 486 (1974).
  21. US DoJ & FTC, 1992 Horizontal Merger Guidelines, http://www.ftc.gov/bc/docs/horizmer.shtm (15.10.2013).
  22. US DoJ & FTC, Horizontal Merger Guidelines 2010, http://www.ftc.gov/os/2010/08/100819hmg.pdf (17.10.2013).
  23. US DoJ, Merger Guidelines 1982, http://www.justice.gov/atr/hmerger/11248.htm (1.10.2013).
  24. US DoJ, Merger Guidelines 1984, http://www.justice.gov/atr/hmerger/11249.pdf (1.10.2013).
  25. Valentine D., The Evolution of U.S. Merger Law, Prepared remarks of Assistant Director for International Antitrust, Federal Trade Commission, before INDECOPI Con-ference, Lima, August 13, 1996.
  26. Whish R., Competition Law, Fifth Edition, Lexis Nexis, London 2003.
  27. Wilmerhale, 2013 M&A Report, Boston, 2013.
  28. Wilson J., Globalization and the Limits of National Merger Control Laws, Kluwer International, The Hague, London, New York, 2003.
  29. Wright J.D., Abandoning Antitrust's Chicago Obsession: The case for Evidence-Based Antitrust, "Antitrust Law Journal", Vol. 78, No. 1/2012.
Cytowane przez
Pokaż
ISSN
1898-2255
Język
eng
URI / DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/EiP.2014.030
Udostępnij na Facebooku Udostępnij na Twitterze Udostępnij na Google+ Udostępnij na Pinterest Udostępnij na LinkedIn Wyślij znajomemu