Abstract
The European Commission recently published a Green Paper on the review of the Merger Regulation, which, amongst other things, invites comments on whether the Merger Regulation should be amended to make explicit allowance for an efficiency defence. This paper is a contribution to this debate. After discussing the economic and political reasons that justify the introduction of an efficiency defence, it reviews the legislation and practice in the European Union, the United States and Canada. Finally, it examines the methodological and implementation problems raised by the efficiency defence and suggests a sequential approach as a way of minimizing these difficulties.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baker, J.B., “Econometric analysis in FTC v. Staples,” FTC, 18 July, http:/www.ftc.gov/speeches/other/stspch.htm, 1997.
Bennett, M., de Bijl, P., and Canoy, M., “Future policy in telecommunications: an analytical framework,” CPB Document no. 005, Centraal Planbureau, Den Haag, 2001.
Brodley, J.F., “Proof of efficiencies in mergers and joint ventures: testing ex ante claims against ex post evidence.” Statement of Joseph H. Brodley, Federal Trade Commission hearings on global and innovation-based competition, 7 November 1995 (revised, 1996).
Camesasca, P.D., “The explicit efficiency defence in merger control: does it make the difference,” European Competition Law Review, vol. 20,no. 1, 1999.
Camesasca, P.D., “European merger control: getting the efficiencies right,” Intersentia-Hart: Antwerpen, Groningen, Oxford, ISBN 90-5095-111-2, 2000.
Competition Bureau, “Merger Enforcement Guidelines,” http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/ct01026e.html, Canada, 1991.
Competition Bureau, The Commissioner of Competition v Superior Propane Inc. and ICG Propane Inc., CT-98/2, Memorandum of the Commissioner of Competition on the redetermination proceedings, June 25, Canada, 2001.
Competition Tribunal, Director of Investigation and Research v Hillsdown Holdings (Canada) Ltd et al., CT 91/1, Reasons and Order, March 9, Canada, 1992.
Competition Tribunal, The Commissioner of Competition v Superior Propane Inc. and ICG Propane Inc., CT 1998/002, Reasons and Order, August 30, Canada, 2000.
Competition Tribunal, The Commissioner of Competition v Superior Propane Inc. and ICG Propane Inc., CT 1998/002, Reasons and Order following Reasons for Judgement of the Federal Court of Appeal dated April 4, 2001, Canada, 2002.
European Commission, “The European aerospace industry: meeting the global challenge,” Communication from the Commission, COM (1997)466 of September 24, 1997.
European Commission, “The competitiveness of European enterprises in the face of globalization—How it can be encouraged,” Communication from the Commission, COM(98) 718 of January 20, 1999.
European Commission, “Green Paper on the review of Council Regulation (EEC) no. 4064/89,” COM(2001)745 of December 11, 2001.
European Parliament, Report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy on the competitiveness of European industry, PE 223.973/fin. of 21/4/1998, 1998a.
European Parliament, Report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs and Industrial Policy, PE 223.989/fin. of 13/10/1998, 1998b.
European Parliament, Report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Security and Defence Policy on a communication from the Commission “Implementing European Union strategy on defence-related industries,” PE 227.720/fin. of 8/12/1998, 1998c.
Farrell, J. and Shapiro, C., “Horizontal mergers: an equilibrium analysis,” American Economic Review, vol. 80,no. 1, pp. 107–126, 1990.
Fox, E.M. “Antitrust and competitiveness: efficiencies, failing firms and the world arena,” Statement of Eleanor M. Fox, Federal Trade Commission hearings on global and innovation-based competition, 13 December 1995 (revised December, 29) 1995.
Froeb L., Tschanz, S. and Werden, G. “Pass-through rates and the price effects of mergers,” Owen Working Paper, Vanderbilt University, July 12, 2001.
Gugler, K., Mueller, D.C., Burcin Yurtoglu, B., and Zulehner, C. “The Effects of Mergers: An International Comparison,” Discussion Paper FS IV 01-21, WZB, Berlin.
Jacquemin, A., Buigues, P., and Ilzkovitz, F. “Horizontal mergers and competition policy in the European Community,” European Economy No. 40, March, 1989.
Jacquemin, A., “Theories of industrial organization and competition policy: what are the links?” In Economic Science: An Art or an Asset?, Edward Elgar, 1997.
Neven, D., Nuttal, R., and Seabright, P. “Merger in daylight. The economics and politics of European merger control,” CEPR, 1993.
Röller, L.-H., Stennek, J., and Verboven, F. “Efficiency gains from mergers.” Report prepared for the European Commission, 1999.
Shapiro, C. “Mergers with differentiated products,” US Department of Justice, November 9, http:/www.antitrust.org/law/shapSpeech.html, 1995.
Stennek, J. and Verboven, F. “Merger control and enterprise competitiveness—Empirical analysis and policy recommendations.” Report prepared for the European Commission, 2001.
Tichy, G. “What do we know about success and failure of mergers,” Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 1:4, pp. 347–394, 2001.
Townley, P., The Commissioner of Competition v. Superior Propane Inc. et al., Affidavit of Peter G. C. Townley, Competition Tribunal, File no. CT 98/2, August 16, 1999.
Werden, G. and Froeb, L. “Simulation as an alternative to structural merger policy in differentiated products industries,” Economic Analysis Group Discussion Paper EAG 95-2, September, 1995.
Williamson, O., “Economies as an antitrust defense: the welfare trade-offs,” American Economic Review, vol. 58, pp. 18–36, 1968.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ilzkovitz, F., Meiklejohn, R. European Merger Control: Do We Need an Efficiency Defence?. Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 3, 57–85 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025430520383
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1025430520383