Advertisement

Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade

, Volume 1, Issue 4, pp 411–422 | Cite as

What Do We Conclude from the Success and Failure of Mergers?

  • Bruce R. Lyons
Article

Abstract

Tichy's review of the evidence presents at best a very mixed picture of the “success” of mergers as a corporate strategy. However, care should be taken not to interpret this as a case for crudely prohibitive competition policy. A simple framework is developed to show that mergers anticipating market changes might not be inappropriate, even when ex post results will appear disappointing. We argue that the competition authorities should protect consumers, and not provide management consultancy on behalf of shareholders. We suggest a more limited reform of the EC Merger Regulation than that proposed by Tichy.

antitrust policy mergers endogenous market structure 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Besanko, D. and Spulber, D., “Contested mergers and equilibrium antitrust policy,” Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, vol. 9no. 1, pp. 1-29, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. Davies, S. and Lyons, B. Industrial Organisation in the European Union: Structure, Strategy and the Competitive Mechanism. Oxford University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  3. Deneckere, R. and Davidson, C., “Incentives to form coalitions with Bertrand competition,” Rand Journal of Economics, vol. 16no. 4, pp. 473-486, 1985.Google Scholar
  4. European Communities Merger Regulation 4064/89 can be found at http://europa.eu.int/comm/competition/mergers/legislation/regulation/Google Scholar
  5. Farrell, J. and Shapiro, C., “Horizontal mergers: an equilibrium analysis,” American Economic Review, vol. 80no. 1, pp. 107-126, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. Horn, H. and Persson, L., “Endogenous mergers in concentrated markets,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, vol. 19no. 8, pp. 1213-1244, 2001.Google Scholar
  7. Kamien, M. and Zhang, I., “The limits of monopolization through acquisition,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 105no. 2, pp. 465-499, 1990.Google Scholar
  8. Lyons, B. and Matraves, C., “Industrial concentration,” in Davies and Lyons ibid., 1996.Google Scholar
  9. Lyons, B., Matraves, C., and Moffatt, P., “Industrial concentration and market integration in the European Union,” Economica, vol. 68, pp. 1-26, 2001.Google Scholar
  10. Lyons, B., “Could politicians be more right than economists? A theory of merger standards,” UEA Centre for Competition & Regulation Working Paper 02-1, 2002.Google Scholar
  11. Neven, D., Nuttall, R., and Seabright, P., Merger in Daylight: The Economics and Politics of European Merger Control, CEPR, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. Neven, D. and Roeller, L.-H., “Consumer surplus versus welfare standard in a political economy model of merger control,” WZB Working Paper FS IV, 15, 2000.Google Scholar
  13. Perry, M. and Porter, R., “Oligopoly and the incentive for horizontal merger”, American Economic Review, vol. 75no. 1, pp. 219-227, 1985.Google Scholar
  14. Salant, S., Switzer, S., and Reynolds, R., “Losses from horizontal merger: the effects of an exogenous change in industry structure on Cournot-Nash equilibrium,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 98no. 2, pp. 185-199, 1983.Google Scholar
  15. Sutton, J., Sunk Costs and Market Structure: Price Competition, Advertising, and the Evolution of Concentration. MIT Press, 1991.Google Scholar
  16. Williamson, O. “Economies as an antitrust defense: the welfare trade-offs,” American Economic Review, vol. 58, pp. 18-36, 1968.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bruce R. Lyons
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Economic and Social StudiesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations