Advertisement

The Institutional Design of Competition Authorities: Debates and Trends

  • Frederic JennyEmail author
Chapter
  • 1k Downloads
Part of the International Law and Economics book series (ILEC)

Abstract

The issue of institutional design of competition authorities has attracted increasing interest since the early 2000 but requires further elaboration. This article attempts to fill some gaps by providing a general framework to examine a number of dimensions of this issue under three headings: the goals, the functions and the organization of competition authorities. While there is no unique institutional design which would fit all countries, a number trade-offs should be considered in designing a competition authority. These trade-offs may lead to different designs across countries depending on the local conditions. Ultimately choosing the best possible design for the competition authority given the local conditions is crucial to ensure that the competition authority is most effectively able to discharge its duties.

Keywords

Antitrust law Enforcement Competition authority Institutional design 

References

  1. Bork, R. H. (1978). The antitrust paradox: A policy at war with itself. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  2. Bundeskartellamt. (2012, March 29). Guidance on substantive merger control.Google Scholar
  3. Coate, M. B., Higgins, R. S., & McChesney, F. (1990). Bureaucracy and politics in FTC merger challenges. The Journal of Law and Economics, 33(2), 463–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Coate, M. B., & Kleit, A. N. (1998). Does it matter that the prosecutor is also the judge? The administrative complaint process at the Federal Trade Commission. Managerial and Decision Economics, 19, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. European Commission. (2014, July 9). “Enhancing competition enforcement by the Member States’ competition authorities: Institutional and procedural issues”, Commission Staff Working Document Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council, Brussels, SWD(2014) 231 final.Google Scholar
  6. European Court of Human Rights. (1981, June 23). Judgement R LE COMPTE, VAN LEUVEN AND DE MEYERE v. BELGIUM (Application no. 6878/75; 7238/75).Google Scholar
  7. Fels, A., & Ergas, H. (2014, December 17–18). Note, Institutional design of competition authorities, OECD Competition Committee.Google Scholar
  8. Fox, E. M., & Trebilcox, M. J. (2012, August 1). The design of competition law institutions and the global convergence of process norms: The GAL competition project. New York University Law and Economics Working Papers.Google Scholar
  9. Hovenkamp, H. J. (2011, August). Distributive justice and consumer welfare in antitrust. Available at SSRN.Google Scholar
  10. International Competition Network. (2005, April). Merger notification filing fees: A report.Google Scholar
  11. International Competition Network. (2010, March). Agency effectiveness competition agency practice manual.Google Scholar
  12. International Competition Network. (2011, May 17–20). Competition enforcement and consumer welfare: Setting the agenda. In 10th annual ICN conference, The Hague.Google Scholar
  13. Kirkwood, J., & Lande, R. H. (2008). The fundamental goal of antitrust: Protecting consumers, not increasing efficiency. Notre Dame Law Review, 84(1), 191–243. Seattle University of Law Digital Commons.Google Scholar
  14. Kovacic, W. E., & Hyman, D. A. Competition agency design: What’s on the menu. GWU Legal studies research paper n°2012-135.Google Scholar
  15. Kovacic, W. E., & Hyman, D. A. (2013). Competition agencies with complex policy portfolios: Divide or conquer? (GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works, Paper 631).Google Scholar
  16. Kovacic, W., & Wineman, M. (2015). The Federal Trade Commission as an independent agency: Autonomy, legitimacy and effectiveness. Iowa Law Review, 100, 2085.Google Scholar
  17. Lowe, P. (2009). The design of competition policy institutions for the 21st century—The experience of the European Commission and DG Competition. In X. Vives (Ed.), Competition policy in the EU fifty years on from the treaty of Rome. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Muris, T. J. (2002, October 31). The interface of competition and consumer protection. In Remarks before the Fordham Corporate Law Institute’s twenty-ninth annual conference on international antitrust law and policy.Google Scholar
  19. New Zealand, Ministry of Economic Development. (2004, November). Fees for clearance and authorization applications.Google Scholar
  20. OECD Global Forum on Competition 2003. Session I “The objectives of competition law and policy”.Google Scholar
  21. OECD Global Forum on Competition 2003. Secretariat note “Objectives of competition law and policy and optimal design of a competition agency”.Google Scholar
  22. OECD, Note BIAC. (2014, December 10). Roundtable on institutional changes, OECD Competition Committee, DAF/COMP/WD(2014)126.Google Scholar
  23. OECD, Note by Australia. (2014, December 4). Roundtable on CHANGES IN INSTITUTIONAL DESIGN OF COMPETITION AUTHORITIES, DAF/COMP/WD(2014)87.Google Scholar
  24. OECD, Note by Belgium. (2014, November 21). Roundtable on changes in institutional design of competition authorities, DAF/COMP/WD(2014)88.Google Scholar
  25. OECD, Note by Finland. (2014, November 17). Roundtable on changes in institutional design of competition authorities, DAF/COMP/WD(2014)92.Google Scholar
  26. OECD, Note by Greece. (2014, November 21). Roundtable on changes in institutional design of competition authorities, DAF/COMP/WD(2014)93.Google Scholar
  27. OECD, Note by Iceland. (2014, November 18). Roundtable on changes in institutional design of competition authorities, DAF/COMP/WD(2014)94.Google Scholar
  28. OECD, Note by Ireland. (2014, December 1). Roundtable on changes in institutional design of competition authorities, OECD, DAF/COMP/WD(2014)95.Google Scholar
  29. OECD, Note by Italy. (2014, December 17–18). Roundtable on changes in institutional design of competition authorities, DAF/COMP/WD(2014)96.Google Scholar
  30. OECD, Note by Poland. (2014, December 10). Roundtable on changes in institutional design of competition authorities, DAF/COMP/WD(2014)135.Google Scholar
  31. OECD, Note by Portugal. (2014, December 10). Roundtable on changes in institutional design of competition authorities, DAF/COMP/WD(2014)102.Google Scholar
  32. OECD, Note by the European Union. (2014, December 5). Roundtable on institutional changes, OECD Competition Committee, DAF/COMP/WD(2014)107.Google Scholar
  33. OECD, Note by the Netherlands. (2014, December 2). Roundtable on changes in institutional design of competition authorities, DAF/COMP/WD(2014)100.Google Scholar
  34. OECD, Note by the Netherlands. (2014, November 18). Roundtable on changes in institutional design of competition authorities, OECD, DAF/COMP/WD(2014)103.Google Scholar
  35. OECD, Note by the Secretariat. “The objectives of competition law and policy”, OECD Global Forum on Competition 2003.Google Scholar
  36. OECD, Note by the United Kingdom. (2014, November 18). Roundtable on institutional changes, OECD Competition Committee, DAF/COMP/WD(2014)105.Google Scholar
  37. OECD Policy Roundtables. (2011). Background note “Cross-border merger control: Challenges for developing and emerging economies”.Google Scholar
  38. OECD Summary Record of the Roundtable on Changes in Institutional Design, Annex to the Summary Record of the 122th meeting of the Competition Committee held on 17–18 December 2014, 23 March 2015, DAF/Comp/M (2014)3/ANN4/Final.Google Scholar
  39. Ohlhausen, M. K. (2014). One agency, two missions, many benefits: The case for housing competition and consumer protection in a single agency. In: P. Lowe, M. Marquis, & G. Monti (Eds.), European Competition Law Annual 2014: Institutional change and competition authorities. Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  40. Priddis, S. Let me not to the marriage of true minds admit impediments. Competition and Consumer Law in the UK, 21 ANTITRUST.Google Scholar
  41. Sabbatini, P. (2009). Funding the budget of a competition authority with the fines it imposes. SSRN Electronic Journal. doi: 10.2139/ssrn1492666.Google Scholar
  42. Slater, D., Thomas, S., & Waelbroeck, D. Competition law proceedings before the European Commission and the right to a fair trial: No need for reform? (The Global Competition Law Centre Working Papers Series GCLC Working Paper 04/08).Google Scholar
  43. The Australian. (2013, November 14). Break-up bid to put watchdog on leash.Google Scholar
  44. United Kingdom Department of Trade and Industry. (2004, August). Merger fees: Consultation on possible changes to the system of charging firms for the cost of merger control, Consultation Document.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ESSEC Business SchoolParisFrance
  2. 2.OECD Competition CommitteeParisFrance

Personalised recommendations