IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/kap/jincot/v13y2013i2p255-272.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Applying the Theory of Small Economies and Competition Policy: The Case of Switzerland

Author

Listed:
  • Samuel Rutz

Abstract

The question whether optimal competition policy depends on the size of an economy has recently received considerable attention. In particular it has been argued that markets in small economies are often highly concentrated and protected by substantial entry barriers. Market forces may therefore not be strong enough to correct inefficient economic behaviour, i.e. inefficiencies may endure in small economies. This paper applies the theory of small economies and competition policy to the case of Switzerland. It finds that Switzerland cannot be rated as the prototype of a small economy as pertaining to competition policy. It further assesses whether the Swiss Cartel Act accounts for the potential efficiency problems of small economies and reveals that there is scope for a more efficiency enhancing legal competition framework within Switzerland. Copyright Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2013

Suggested Citation

  • Samuel Rutz, 2013. "Applying the Theory of Small Economies and Competition Policy: The Case of Switzerland," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 255-272, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:kap:jincot:v:13:y:2013:i:2:p:255-272
    DOI: 10.1007/s10842-011-0113-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1007/s10842-011-0113-6
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10842-011-0113-6?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lewis Evans, 2004. "The efficiency test under competition law and regulation in the small distant open economy that is New Zealand," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 241-264.
    2. Chaim Fershtman & Ariel Pakes, 2000. "A Dynamic Oligopoly with Collusion and Price Wars," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(2), pages 207-236, Summer.
    3. Motta,Massimo, 2004. "Competition Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521016919.
    4. Neven, Damien J. & Roller, Lars-Hendrik, 2005. "Consumer surplus vs. welfare standard in a political economy model of merger control," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 829-848, December.
    5. Lewis Evans & Patrick Hughes, 2003. "Competition Policy in Small Distant Open Economies: Some Lessons from the Economics Literature," Treasury Working Paper Series 03/31, New Zealand Treasury.
    6. An Renckens, 2007. "Welfare Standards, Substantive Tests, And Efficiency Considerations In Merger Policy: Defining The Efficiency Defense," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 149-179.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Motta, Massimo & Tarantino, Emanuele, 2021. "The effect of horizontal mergers, when firms compete in prices and investments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    2. Katalin Katona & Marcel Canoy, 2013. "Welfare standards in hospital mergers," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 14(4), pages 573-586, August.
    3. Jovanovic, Dragan & Wey, Christian, 2012. "An equilibrium analysis of efficiency gains from mergers," DICE Discussion Papers 64, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    4. Andrei Medvedev, 2004. "Efficiency Defense and Administrative Fuzziness in Merger Regulation," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp234, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    5. Tomaso Duso & Klaus Gugler & Florian Szücs, 2013. "An Empirical Assessment of the 2004 EU Merger Policy Reform," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 123(11), pages 596-619, November.
    6. Bojan Ristić & Dejan Trifunović, 2014. "Horizontal Mergers And Weak And Strong Competition Commissions," Economic Annals, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade, vol. 59(202), pages 69-106, July – Se.
    7. Cosnita, Andreea & Tropeano, Jean-Philippe, 2009. "Negotiating remedies: Revealing the merger efficiency gains," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 188-196, March.
    8. Paolo Buccirossi & Lorenzo Ciari & Tomaso Duso & Giancarlo Spagnolo & Cristiana Vitale, 2011. "Measuring The Deterrence Properties Of Competition Policy: The Competition Policy Indexes," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 165-204.
    9. Katona, Katalin, 2019. "Managed competition in practice : Lessons for healthcare policy," Other publications TiSEM 2c2dd13d-91a8-4706-b705-9, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    10. Rocco Ciciretti & Simone Meraglia & Gustavo Piga, 2011. "Capture, Politics and Antitrust Effectiveness," CEIS Research Paper 208, Tor Vergata University, CEIS, revised 05 Apr 2013.
    11. Mason, Robin & Weeds, Helen, 2013. "Merger policy, entry, and entrepreneurship," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 23-38.
    12. Andrei Medvedev, 2004. "Structural remedies in merger regulation in a Cournot framework," CERGE-EI Working Papers wp229, The Center for Economic Research and Graduate Education - Economics Institute, Prague.
    13. Massimo Motta & Michele Ruta, 2012. "A Political Economy Model of Merger Policy in International Markets," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 79(313), pages 115-136, January.
    14. Choné, Philippe & Linnemer, Laurent, 2008. "Assessing horizontal mergers under uncertain efficiency gains," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 26(4), pages 913-929, July.
    15. Kamerbeek, S.P., 2009. "Merger Performance and Efficiencies in Horizontal Merger Policy in the US and the EU," MPRA Paper 18064, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Chiara Fumagalli & Massimo Motta & Lars Persson, 2009. "On The Anticompetitive Effect Of Exclusive Dealing When Entry By Merger Is Possible," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 785-811, December.
    17. Thomas Giebe & Miyu Lee, 2020. "Competitors in merger control: Shall they be merely heard or also listened to?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(3), pages 431-453, June.
    18. Paolo Buccirossi & Lorenzo Ciari & Tomaso Duso & Sven-Olof Fridolfsson & Giancarlo Spagnolo & Cristiana Vitale, 2008. "A Short Overview of a Methodology for the Ex-Post Review of Merger Control Decisions," De Economist, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 453-475, December.
    19. Bayer, Christian, 2007. "Investment timing and predatory behavior in a duopoly with endogenous exit," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 31(9), pages 3069-3109, September.
    20. Helder Vasconcelos, 2013. "Can the failing firm defence rule be counterproductive?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 65(2), pages 567-593, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    antitrust; small economies; Swiss competition law; law enforcement; K21; K42; L4;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law
    • L4 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:jincot:v:13:y:2013:i:2:p:255-272. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.