Conflicting evidence and decisions by agency professionals: an experimental test in the context of merger regulation
- 134 Downloads
Many important regulatory decisions are taken by professionals employing limited and conflicting evidence. We conduct an experiment in a merger regulation setting, identifying the role of different standards of proof, volumes of evidence, cost of error and professional or lay decision making. The experiment was conducted on current practitioners from 11 different jurisdictions, in addition to student subjects. Legal standards of proof significantly affect decisions. There are specific differences because of professional judgment, including in how error costs and volume of evidence are taken into account. We narrow the range of explanations for why professional decision making matters.
KeywordsBelief conservatism Experiment Merger control Professionalism Standard of proof
JEL ClassificationL33 L40 L50 C91
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Bailey D. (2003) Standard of proof in EC merger proceedings: A common law perspective. Common Market Law Review 40: 845–888Google Scholar
- Competition Commission. (2003). Merger references: Competition Commission guidelines. http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/rep_pub/rules_and_guide/pdf/CC2.pdf.
- Davis, M. L. (1994). The value of truth and the optimal standard of proof in legal disputes. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 10. 2, 343–359.Google Scholar
- Edwards W. (1968) Conservatism in human information processing. In: Kleinmuntz B. (eds) Formal representation of human judgment. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- European Commission (2004) Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings. Official Journal C 31: 5–18Google Scholar
- Emson R. (2008) Evidence. (4th ed.). Palgrave-Macmillan, BasingstockeGoogle Scholar
- Fox E. (2002) United States and European merger policy: Fault lines and bridges for mergers that create incentives for exclusionary practices. 10 George Mason Law Review 471: 474–475Google Scholar
- Frydman R., Goldberg M. D. (2003) Imperfect knowledge expectations, uncertainty-adjusted uncovered interest rate parity, and exchange rate dynamics. In: Aghion P., Frydman R., Stiglitz J., Woodford M. (eds) Knowledge, information and expectations in modern macroeconomics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
- Garside, L., Grout, P., & Zalewska, A. (2011). Does within-tenure experience make you tougher? Evidence from competition law. Unpublished manuscript available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1689923.
- Glöckner, A., & Engel, C. (2008). Can we trust intuitive jurors? An experimental analysis. Working Paper 2008/36. Bonn: Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.Google Scholar
- Keane A. (2008) The modern law of evidence. (7th ed.). Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
- Menzies, G. D., & Zizzo, D. J. (2007). Exchange rate markets and conservative inferential expectations. Discussion Paper no. 2. , Canberra: Australian National University Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis.Google Scholar
- Menzies, G. D., & Zizzo, D. J. (2008). Do only economists rely on statistical significance? Norwich and Sydney: Social Science Research Network Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
- Menzies, G. D., & Zizzo, D. J. (2009). Inferential expectations. BE Journal of Macroeconomics [Advances], 9, Article 42.Google Scholar
- Ordover J. A., Reynolds R. J. (2002) Archimedean leveraging and the GE-Honeywell transaction. Antitrust Law Journal 70: 171–198Google Scholar
- Patterson D. E., Shapiro C. (2001) Trans-Atlantic divergence in GE/Honeywell: Causes and lessons. Antitrust Magazine 16: 18–26Google Scholar
- Rappoport, P. (1985). Unfalsified expectations: An alternative perspective on modelling rxpectations in macroeconomics. Research report 85-16, New York University, C.V. Starr Center for Applied Economics, New York.Google Scholar
- Schlossberg S. R. (2008) Mergers and acquisitions: Understanding the antitrust issues. (2nd ed.). ABA Section of Antitrust Law, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- Scott A. (2006) Tweedledum and tweedledee?: Regime dynamics in US and EC merger control. In: Marsden P. (eds) Handbook of research in trans-Atlantic antitrust. Edward Elgar Publishing, CheltenhamGoogle Scholar
- Tetley W. (2000) Mixed jurisdictions: Common law vs. civil law (codified and uncodified). Louisiana Law Review 60: 677–738Google Scholar