IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/drm/wpaper/2013-22.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Ex post or ex ante? On the optimal timing of merger control

Author

Listed:
  • Andreea Cosnita-Langlais
  • Jean-Philippe Tropeano

Abstract

We study the optimal timing of merger control by comparing the pre-and post closing enforcement. Mergers have both pro- and anticompetitive effects, and the parties(the agency and the merging firms) veri able information on them is endogenous: it depends on the timing of the merger control, as well as on some investment in evidence production. The ex post enforcement turns out optimal whenever the costs of providing veri able information on both efficiency gains and market power are sufficiently low, regardless of whether the fi rms know ex ante or not their true merger type.

Suggested Citation

  • Andreea Cosnita-Langlais & Jean-Philippe Tropeano, 2013. "Ex post or ex ante? On the optimal timing of merger control," EconomiX Working Papers 2013-22, University of Paris Nanterre, EconomiX.
    • Handle: RePEc:drm:wpaper:2013-22
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://economix.fr/pdf/dt/2013/WP_EcoX_2013-22.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lagerlof, Johan N.M. & Heidhues, Paul, 2005. "On the desirability of an efficiency defense in merger control," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 803-827, December.
    2. Loss, Frederic & Malavolti-Grimal, Estelle & Verge, Thibaud & Berges-Sennou, Fabian, 2008. "European competition policy modernization: From notifications to legal exception," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 77-98, January.
    3. Barros, Pedro Pita, 2003. "Looking behind the curtain--effects from modernization of European Union competition policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 613-624, August.
    4. Ottaviani, Marco & Wickelgren, Abraham L., 2011. "Ex ante or ex post competition policy? A progress report," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 356-359, May.
    5. Choe, Chongwoo & Shekhar, Chander, 2010. "Compulsory or voluntary pre-merger notification? Theory and some evidence," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 10-20, January.
    6. Farrell Joseph & Shapiro Carl, 2010. "Antitrust Evaluation of Horizontal Mergers: An Economic Alternative to Market Definition," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-41, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andreea Cosnita-Langlais, 2016. "Enforcement of Merger Control. Theoretical Insights for Its Procedural Design," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 67(HS1), pages 39-51.
    2. John Kwoka & Tommaso Valletti, 2021. "Unscrambling the eggs: breaking up consummated mergers and dominant firms [Too much data: prices and inefficiencies in data markets]," Industrial and Corporate Change, Oxford University Press and the Associazione ICC, vol. 30(5), pages 1286-1306.

    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. Tropeano, Jean-Philippe, 2020. "Ex ante or Ex post? When the timing of merger assessment is up to the merging firms," Information Economics and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 52(C).
    2. Cosnita-Langlais, Andreea & Tropeano, Jean-Philippe, 2012. "Do remedies affect the efficiency defense? An optimal merger-control analysis," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 58-66.
    3. Andreea Cosnita & Jean-Philippe Tropeano, 2006. "On the effective design of the efficiency defence," Cahiers de la Maison des Sciences Economiques v06030, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1).
    4. Andreea Cosnita‐Langlais & Jean‐Philippe Tropeano, 2023. "Merger selection, evidence provision, and the timing of merger control," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(1), pages 209-222, January.
    5. Patrice Bougette & Florent Venayre, 2008. "Contrôles a priori et a posteriori des concentrations : comment augmenter l'efficacité des politiques de concurrence," Revue d'économie industrielle, De Boeck Université, vol. 0(1), pages 9-40.
    6. Thibaud Vergé & Estelle Malavolti-Grimal & Frédéric Loss, 2007. "Comment décentraliser la politique européenne de concurrence ?," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 178(2), pages 115-124.
    7. Christian Growitsch & Nicole Nulsch & Margarethe Rammerstorfer, 2012. "Preventing innovative cooperations: the legal exemptions unintended side effect," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 33(1), pages 1-22, February.
    8. Ottaviani, Marco & Wickelgren, Abraham L., 2011. "Ex ante or ex post competition policy? A progress report," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 356-359, May.
    9. Moritz Birgit & Becker Martin & Schmidtchen Dieter, 2018. "Measuring the Deterrent Effect of European Cartel Law Enforcement," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 18(3), pages 1-27, July.
    10. Andreea Cosnita-Langlais, 2016. "Enforcement of Merger Control. Theoretical Insights for Its Procedural Design," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 67(HS1), pages 39-51.
    11. Patrice Bougette & Oliver Budzinski & Frédéric Marty, 2024. "Ex-ante versus Ex-post in Competition Law Enforcement: Blurred Boundaries and Economic Rationale," GREDEG Working Papers 2024-18, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France, revised Dec 2024.
    12. Shekhar, Shiva & Wey, Christian, 2017. "Uncertain merger synergies, passive partial ownership, and merger control," DICE Discussion Papers 260, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    13. Fatih Cemil Ozbugday, 2013. "Individual Exemption Applications and Their Assessment: Lessons from the Competition Law Change in the Netherlands during the 1990s," Business and Management Research, Business and Management Research, Sciedu Press, vol. 2(4), pages 148-164, December.
    14. Will, Birgit E. & Schmidtchen, Dieter, 2008. "Fighting cartels: some economics of council regulation (EC) 1/2003," CSLE Discussion Paper Series 2008-02, Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics.
    15. 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).
    16. 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.
    17. Christopher Conlon & Julie Holland Mortimer, 2021. "Empirical properties of diversion ratios," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 52(4), pages 693-726, December.
    18. 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.
    19. Ulrich Blum & Nicole Steinat & Michael Veltins, 2008. "On the rationale of leniency programs: a game-theoretical analysis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 25(3), pages 209-229, June.
    20. Shawn W Ulrick & Mark D Williams, 2024. "“Multi-Product Critical Loss: Allowing for Varying Margins, Prices, and Quantities in the Candidate Antitrust Market”," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 20(1-2), pages 60-84.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    merger control; competition policy; evidence production;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices
    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:drm:wpaper:2013-22. 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: Valerie Mignon (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/modemfr.html .

    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.