Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

EU competition policy and U.S. antitrust: a comparative analysis

  • Published:
European Journal of Law and Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The article provides a critical overview of the most important elements of EU competition policy reforms and presents a comparative analysis between EU and U.S. competition policies. The main focus is on the analysis of cartel enforcement policy, monopoly policy, and merger control.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber, extended composition) of 6 June 2002. Airtours plc v Commission of the European Communities. Case T-342/99.

  2. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fourth Chamber, extended composition) of 11 July 2007. Schneider Electric SA v Commission of the European Communities. Case T-351/03.

  3. Judgment of the Court of First Instance (First Chamber) of 25 October 2002. Tetra Laval BV v Commission of the European Communities. Case T-5/02.

  4. 2005/188/EC: Commission Decision of 19 July 2004 declaring a concentration compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement (Case No COMP/M.3333—SONY/BMG) (notified under document number C(2004) 2815).

  5. 91/619/EEC: Commission Decision of 2 October 1991 declaring the incompatibility with the common market of a concentration (Case No IV/M.053-Aerospatiale-Alenia/de Havilland) - Council Regulation (EEC) No 4064/89.

  6. 2004/134/EC: Commission Decision of 3 July 2001 declaring a concentration to be incompatible with the common market and the EEA Agreement Case COMP/M.2220—General Electric/Honeywell.

References

  • Akbar, Y. H., & Suder, G. S. (2006). The new EU merger regulation: Implications for EU–U.S. merger strategies. Thunderbird. International Business Review, 48(5), 667–685. doi:10.1002/tie.20115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagchi, A. (2005). The political economy of merger regulation. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 53(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, C. (1999). What is policy convergence and what causes it? British Journal of Political Science, 21, 215–233. doi:10.1017/S0007123400006116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böheim, M. (2011). Competition policy: Ten lessons learnt from the financial crisis. Empirica, 38, 315–330. doi:10.1007/s10663-010-9163-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borbely, D. (2006). Policy implications. In A. Mueller (Ed.), Trade specialization in the enlarged European Union (pp. 179–186). Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brenner, S. (2011). Self-disclosure at international cartels. Journal of International Business Studies, 42, 221–234. doi:10.1057/jibs.2010.37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brisset, K., & Thomas, L. (2004). Leniency program: A new tool in competition policy to deter cartel activity in procurement auctions. European Journal of Law and Economics, 17, 5–19. doi:10.1023/A:1026329724892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budzinski, O. (2007). Monoculture versus diversity in competition economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 32, 295–324. doi:10.1093/cje/bem031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budzinski, O. (2010). An institutional analysis of the enforcement problems in merger control (May 25, 2010). doi:10.2139/ssrn.1615486.

  • Budzinski, O., & Christiansen, A. (2005). Competence allocation in the EU competition policy system as an interest-driven process. Journal of Public Policy, 25(3), 313–337. doi:10.1017/S0143814X0500036X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budzinski, O., Kuchinke, B. A. (2012). Deal or no deal? Consensual arrangements as an instrument of European competition policy (No. 76). Ilmenau Economics Discussion Paper, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.

  • Damro, C. (2006). The new trade politics and EU competition policy: Shopping for convergence and cooperation. Journal of European Public Policy, 13(6), 867–886. doi:10.1080/13501760600838565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damro, C. (2011). Regulators, firms and information: The domestic sources of convergence in transatlantic merger review. Review of International Political Economy, 18(4), 409–435. doi:10.1080/09692290903562503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damro, C., & Guay, T. (2012). Transatlantic merger relations: The pursuit of cooperation and convergence. European Integration, 34(6), 643–661. doi:10.1080/07036337.2012.707365.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davison, L., & Johnson, D. (2002). The EU’s evolving stance on the international dimension of competition policy: A critical commentary. Intereconomics, 9, 244–252. doi:10.1007/BF02928883.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolowitz, D., & Marsh, D. (1996). Who learns from whom? A review of the policy transfer literature. Political Studies, 44, 343–357. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9248.1996.tb00334.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Drezner, D. (2005). Globalization, harmonization, and competition: The different pathways to policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 841–859. doi:10.1080/13501760500161472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ehlermann, C. D., Marquis, M. (2009). European Competition Law Annual 2008: Antitrust settlements under EC competition law. Hart Publishing.

  • Fernandez, B. M., Hashi, I., & Jegers, M. (2008). The implementation of the European Commission’s Merger Regulation 2004: An empirical analysis. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 4(3), 791–809. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhn006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • First, H. (2003). Evolving toward what? The development of international antitrust. In J. Drexl (Ed.), The future of transnational antitrust: From comparative to common competition law (pp. 23–51). Bern: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friederiszick, H. W., & Maier-Rigaud, F. M. (2008). Triggering inspections ex officio: Moving beyond a passive EU cartel policy. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 4(1), 89–113. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhm024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghosal, V. (2011). Regime shift in antitrust laws, economics, and enforcement. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 7(4), 733–774. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhr016.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gifford, D., & Kudrle, R. (2011). Antitrust approaches to dynamically competitive industries in the United States and the European Union. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 7(3), 695–731. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhr011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gravengaard, M. A., & Kjærsgaard, N. (2010). The EU Commission guidance on exclusionary abuse of dominance: And its consequences in practice. European Competition Law Review, 7, 285–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hammond, S. (2009). Cornerstones of an effective leniency programs. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 9(9), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heichel, S., Pape, J., & Sommerer, T. (2005). Is there convergence in convergence research? An overview of empirical studies on policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 817–840. doi:10.1080/13501760500161431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hinloopen, J. (2003). An economic analysis of leniency programs in antitrust law. The Economist, 151, 415–432. doi:10.1023/B:ECOT.0000006592.62377.60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holzinger, K., & Knill, C. (2005). Causes and conditions of cross-national policy convergence. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 775–796. doi:10.1080/13501760500161357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassim, H., & Wright, K. (2009). Bringing regulatory processes back in the reform of EU antitrust and merger control. West European Politics, 32(4), 738–755. doi:10.1080/01402380902945391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knill, C. (2005). Introduction: Cross-national policy convergence: Concepts, approaches and explanatory factors. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(5), 764–774. doi:10.1080/13501760500161332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kovacic, W. (2008). Competition policy in the European Union and the United States: Convergence or divergence? Society for Advanced Economics, 7, 1–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leddy, M., Cook, C., Abell, J., & Eclair-Heath, G. (2010). Transatlantic merger control: The courts and the agencies. Cornell International Law Journal, 43, 25–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loss, F., Malavolti-Grimal, E., Verge, T., & Berges-Sennou, F. (2008). European competition policy modernization: From notifications to legal exception. European Economic Review, 52, 77–98. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2007.02.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, R. (2004). Reform of European merger policy. Review of International Economics, 12(2), 246–261. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9396.2004.00447.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mantere, S., Schildt, H., & Sillince, J. (2012). Reversal of strategic change. Academy of Management Journal, 55(1), 172–196. doi:10.5465/amj.2008.0045.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marra, A., & Sarra, A. (2009). Incomplete antitrust laws and private actions for damages. European Journal of Law and Economics, 30, 111–135. doi:10.1007/s10657-009-9130-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McAfee, R. P., & Mialon, H. M. (2008). Private versus public antitrust enforcement: A strategic analysis. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1863–1875. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.04.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGowan, L. (2007). Europeanization unleashed and rebounding: Assessing the modernization of EU cartel policy. Journal of European Public Policy, 12(6), 986–1004. doi:10.1080/13501760500270646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGowan, L. (2009). Any nearer to victory in the 50-year war? Assessing the European Commission’s leadership, weapons and strategies towards combating cartels. Perspectives on European Politics and Society, 10(3), 183–301. doi:10.1080/15705850903105702.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Montalban, M., Ramïrez-Përez, S., & Smith, A. (2009). EU competition policy revisited: Economic doctrines within European political work. Society for Advanced Economics, 7, 1–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, E. (2009). Controlling cartels: Implications of the EU policy reforms. European Management Journal, 27, 1–12. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peyer, S. (2011). Cartel members only: Revisiting private antitrust policy in Europe. The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 60(7), 627–657. doi:10.1017/S002058931100025X.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitofsky, R. (2007). Efficiency consideration and merger enforcement: Comparison of U.S. and EU approaches. Fordham International Law Journal, 30, 1413–1425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Renckens, A. (2007). Welfare standards, substantive tests, and efficiency considerations in merger policy: Defining the efficiency defense. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 3(2), 149–179. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhm007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Röller, L., & Wey, C. (2003). Merger control in the new economy. Netnomics, 5, 5–20. doi:10.1023/A:1024998218643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schaub, A. (2002). Cooperation and competition policy enforcement between the EU and the U.S. and new concepts evolving at the World Trade Organization and the International Competition Network. Intereconomics, 5, 1–15.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schinkel, M. P. (2011). Bargaining in the shadow of the European settlement procedure for cartels. The Antitrust Bulletin, 56(2), 461–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spagnolo, G. (2008). Leniency and whistleblowers in antitrust. In P. Buccirossi (Ed.), Handbook of antitrust economics (pp. 259–302). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stephan, A. (2008). An empirical assessment of the European leniency notice. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 5(3), 537–561. doi:10.1093/joclec/nhn031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turk, M. V. (2012). Merger remedies beyond the competition concern: When could you end up giving more? Journal of European Competition Law and Practice, 3, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Waarden, F., & Drahos, M. (2002). Courts and (epistemic) communities in the convergence of competition policies. Journal of European Public Policy, 9(6), 913–934. doi:10.1080/1350176022000046427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasconcelos, H. (2010). Efficiency gains and structural remedies in merger control. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 58(4), 742–766. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6451.2010.00436.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vickers, J. (2005). Abuse of market power. The Economic Journal, 115, 244–261. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2005.01004.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weitbrecht, A. (2008). From Freiburg to Chicago and beyond: The first 50 years of European competition law. European Competition Law Review, 2, 81–88.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigger, A., & Nölke, A. (2007). Enhanced roles of private actors in EU business regulation and the erosion of Rhenish capitalism: The case of antitrust enforcement. Journal of Common Market Studies, 45(2), 487–513. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5965.2007.00719.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilks, S. (2005). Agency escape: Decentralization or dominance of the European Commission in the modernization of competition policy? Governance: An International Journal of Policy Administration and Institutions, 18(3), 431–452. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0491.2005.00283.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wils, W. P. (2006). Settlements of EU antitrust investigations: Commitment Decisions under article 9 of Regulation No 1/2003. World Competition: Law and Economics Review, 29(3), 345–366.

  • Wurmnest, W. (2008). The reform of article 82 EC in the light of the ‘economic approach’. Competition and Tax Law, 5, 1–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zweifel, T. (2003). Democratic deficits in comparison: Best (and worst) practices in European, U.S. and Swiss merger regulation. Journal of Common Market Studies, 41(3), 541–566. doi:10.1111/1468-5965.00434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Aarhus, Aarhus C, Denmark

    Dzmitry Bartalevich

Authors
  1. Dzmitry Bartalevich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dzmitry Bartalevich.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bartalevich, D. EU competition policy and U.S. antitrust: a comparative analysis. Eur J Law Econ 44, 91–112 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-014-9459-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-014-9459-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation