IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/halshs-00463953.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Contrôles a priori et a posteriori des concentrations : comment augmenter l'efficacité des politiques de concurrence ?

Author

Listed:
  • Patrice Bougette

    (GREDEG - Groupe de Recherche en Droit, Economie et Gestion - UNS - Université Nice Sophia Antipolis (1965 - 2019) - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UniCA - Université Côte d'Azur)

  • Florent Venayre

    (LAMETA - Laboratoire Montpelliérain d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - UM1 - Université Montpellier 1 - UPVM - Université Paul-Valéry - Montpellier 3 - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - Montpellier SupAgro - Centre international d'études supérieures en sciences agronomiques - UM - Université de Montpellier - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - Montpellier SupAgro - Institut national d’études supérieures agronomiques de Montpellier)

Abstract

En France, la récente affaire de l'eau semble sonner le glas du contrôle a posteriori des concentrations. L'objectif de cet article est de souligner pourtant l'intérêt de ce type de contrôle en montrant son rôle crucial pour les autorités de concurrence comme complément du système actuel des notifications. En présentant les limites d'un contrôle exclusivement ex-ante, nous montrons que la possibilité d'agir ex-post sur les structures du marché pourrait engendrer des comportements plus vertueux dans le contrôle amont en réduisant les effets de sélection adverse. Le contrôle a posteriori permettrait également une action positive sur les comportements des acteurs une fois la fusion réalisée, qu'il s'agisse des stratégies des firmes ou des nouvelles possibilités offertes aux autorités en matière d'incitations comportementales. Malgré ces effets favorables, la mise en œuvre d'un contrôle a posteriori des concentrations doit être abordée avec précaution car se poseraient en particulier des problèmes de sécurité juridique. Ces derniers pourraient cependant être compensés par une affirmation de la compétence du Conseil de la concurrence en matière de concentration.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrice Bougette & Florent Venayre, 2008. "Contrôles a priori et a posteriori des concentrations : comment augmenter l'efficacité des politiques de concurrence ?," Post-Print halshs-00463953, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-00463953
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00463953
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00463953/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lars-Hendrik Röller & Johan Stennek & Frank Verboven, 2006. "Efficiency Gains from Mergers," Chapters, in: Fabienne IIzkovitz & Roderick Meiklejohn (ed.), European Merger Control, chapter 3, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    2. 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.
    3. David Encaoua & Roger Guesnerie, 2006. "Politiques de la Concurrence," Université Paris1 Panthéon-Sorbonne (Post-Print and Working Papers) halshs-00177629, HAL.
    4. Motta,Massimo, 2004. "Competition Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521016919, January.
    5. Farrell, Joseph & Shapiro, Carl, 1990. "Horizontal Mergers: An Equilibrium Analysis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 107-126, March.
    6. 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.
    7. Helder Vasconcelos, 2010. "Efficiency Gains And Structural Remedies In Merger Control," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(4), pages 742-766, December.
    8. Motta, Massimo & Vasconcelos, Helder, 2005. "Efficiency gains and myopic antitrust authority in a dynamic merger game," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 777-801, December.
    9. Gugler, Klaus & Mueller, Dennis C. & Yurtoglu, B. Burcin & Zulehner, Christine, 2003. "The effects of mergers: an international comparison," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 625-653, May.
    10. Besanko, David & Spulber, Daniel F, 1993. "Contested Mergers and Equilibrium Antitrust Policy," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 1-29, April.
    11. Florent Venayre & Christian Montet, 2004. "Grande distribution française : Faire confiance au marché ou céder à la tentation réglementaire ?," Post-Print halshs-00652153, HAL.
    12. Medvedev, A., 2004. "Structural Remedies in Merger Regulation in a Cournot Framework," Discussion Paper 2004-006, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
    13. Benoît Menoni & Lionel Janin, 2007. "Le contrôle des concentrations en France : une analyse empirique des avis du Conseil de la concurrence," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 178(2), pages 93-114.
    14. Weeds, Helen & Mason, Robin, 2002. "The Failing Firm Defence: Merger Policy and Entry," CEPR Discussion Papers 3664, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Florent Venayre, 2004. "Échanges d'informations : les jurisprudences française et communautaire - À l'aune des prédictions théoriques," Revue d'Économie Industrielle, Programme National Persée, vol. 108(1), pages 91-112.
    16. Damien J. Neven, 2006. "Competition economics and antitrust in Europe [‘Comment: Airtours/First choice: CFI clips MTF's wings’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 21(48), pages 742-791.
    17. Florent Venayre, 2005. "Demi-mesures sur le marché de la bière," Post-Print halshs-00653046, HAL.
    18. Tomaso Duso & Damien J. Neven & Lars-Hendrik Röller, 2007. "The Political Economy of European Merger Control: Evidence using Stock Market Data," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 50(3), pages 455-489.
    19. Patricia Charléty & Said Souam, 2002. "Analyse économique des fusions horizontales," Revue Française d'Économie, Programme National Persée, vol. 17(2), pages 37-68.
    20. Thierry Pénard & Saïd Souam, 2002. "Que peut bien apporter l'analyse économique à l'application du droit de la concurrence ?," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 112(6), pages 863-887.
    21. Sven‐Olof Fridolfsson & Johan Stennek, 2010. "Industry Concentration and Welfare: On the Use of Stock Market Evidence from Horizontal Mergers," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 77(308), pages 734-750, October.
    22. Ivaldi, Marc & Jullien, Bruno & Rey, Patrick & Seabright, Paul & Tirole, Jean, 2003. "The Economics of Tacit Collusion," IDEI Working Papers 186, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    23. Compte, Olivier & Jenny, Frederic & Rey, Patrick, 2002. "Capacity constraints, mergers and collusion," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 1-29, January.
    24. Bergman, Mats A. & Jakobsson, Maria & Razo, Carlos, 2005. "An econometric analysis of the European Commission's merger decisions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 717-737, December.
    25. Ivaldi, Marc & Verboven, Frank, 2005. "Quantifying the effects from horizontal mergers in European competition policy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 669-691, December.
    26. Gunther Tichy, 2001. "What Do We Know about Success and Failure of Mergers?," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 1(4), pages 347-394, December.
    27. Lars Persson, 2005. "The Failing Firm Defense," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 175-201, June.
    28. Hausman, Jerry A. & Leonard, Gregory K., 2005. "Using merger simulation models: Testing the underlying assumptions," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 693-698, December.
    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. 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).
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Mariana Cunha & Hélder Vasconcelos, 2018. "Sequential Mergers and Antitrust Authority’s Decisions in Stackelberg Markets," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 18(3), pages 373-394, September.
    5. Helder Vasconcelos, 2013. "Can the failing firm defence rule be counterproductive?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 65(2), pages 567-593, April.
    6. 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.
    7. Oliver Budzinski & Jürgen-Peter Kretschmer, 2007. "Implications of Unprofitable Horizontal Mergers: A Re-Interpretation of the Farrell-Shapiro-Framework," Marburg Working Papers on Economics 200714, Philipps-Universität Marburg, Faculty of Business Administration and Economics, Department of Economics (Volkswirtschaftliche Abteilung).
    8. 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.
    9. Markus Dertwinkel-Kalt & Christian Wey, 2021. "Evidence Production in Merger Control: The Role of Remedies," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 59(1), pages 1-12, August.
    10. Oliver Budzinski & Jürgen-Peter Kretschmer, 2016. "Implications of Unprofitable Horizontal Mergers: A Positive External Effect Does Not Suffice To Clear A Merger!," Contemporary Economics, University of Economics and Human Sciences in Warsaw., vol. 10(1), March.
    11. Jrisy Motis, 2007. "Mergers and Acquisitions Motives," Working Papers 0730, University of Crete, Department of Economics.
    12. Davies, Stephen & Olczak, Matthew & Coles, Heather, 2011. "Tacit collusion, firm asymmetries and numbers: Evidence from EC merger cases," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 221-231, March.
    13. Stephen Davies & Matthew Olczak & Heather Coles, 2007. "Tacit collusion, firm asymmetries and numbers: evidence from EC merger cases," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2007-07, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    14. Emilie Dargaud, 2013. "Horizontal mergers, efficiency gains and remedies," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 349-372, October.
    15. Lionel Janin & Benoît Menoni, 2007. "L e contrôle des concentrations en France : une analyse empirique des avis du Conseil de la concurrence," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(2), pages 93-114.
    16. 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).
    17. Cristina Pardo-Garcia & Jose Sempere-Monerris, 2015. "Equilibrium mergers in a composite good industry with efficiencies," SERIEs: Journal of the Spanish Economic Association, Springer;Spanish Economic Association, vol. 6(1), pages 101-127, March.
    18. Alessandro Fedele & Massimo Tognoni, 2010. "Failing Firm Defence With Entry Deterrence," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(4), pages 365-386, October.
    19. James Gaisford & Stefan Lutz, 2007. "A Multi-Product Framework Generating Waves of Mergers and Divestitures," ICER Working Papers 36-2007, ICER - International Centre for Economic Research.
    20. 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.

    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:hal:journl:halshs-00463953. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.