IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hig/wpaper/62-ec-2014.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Using Remedies In Russian Merger Control

Author

Listed:
  • Anastasiya Redkina

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

Abstract

This article is motivated by a growing interest in the problem of merger control quality assessment. Remedies are one of the instruments of merger control and have a significant influence on the results of it. This paper aims to build and empirically evaluate a discrete choice model of merger remedies implementation in Russian merger control. The database consists of 443 merger cases accepted by the Russian antimonopoly agency between 2008 and 2011. We analyse the agency’s decisions to find which characteristics of merging firms and markets lead the Federal Antimonopoly Service to decide whether to allow conditional acceptance. We find that variables related to high market power lead more frequently to a remedy outcome. Such industries as the energy sector, communications and insurance positively affect the probability of a structural remedy. We do not find significant effects of “non-structural” variables, such as the world leader and the nationality of the firm-buyer

Suggested Citation

  • Anastasiya Redkina, 2014. "Using Remedies In Russian Merger Control," HSE Working papers WP BRP 62/EC/2014, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:62/ec/2014
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.hse.ru/data/2014/09/17/1314984902/62EC2014.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Motta,Massimo, 2004. "Competition Policy," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521016919, January.
    2. Khemani, R S & Shapiro, Daniel M, 1993. "An Empirical Analysis of Canadian Merger Policy," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 161-177, June.
    3. Patrice Bougette & Stéphane Turolla, 2006. "Merger Remedies at the European Commission: A Multinomial Logit Analysis," Post-Print halshs-00466606, HAL.
    4. Bruce Lyons, 2008. "An Economic Assessment of EC Merger Control: 1958-2007," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2008-17, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    5. 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.
    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. 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.
    2. Patrice Bougette & Stéphane Turolla, 2006. "Merger Remedies at the European Commission: A Multinomial Logit Analysis," Post-Print halshs-00466606, HAL.
    3. Patrice Bougette & Stéphane Turolla, 2008. "Market structures, political surroundings, and merger remedies: an empirical investigation of the EC’s decisions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 25(2), pages 125-150, April.
    4. 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.
    5. Jordi Gual & Núria Mas, 2011. "Industry Characteristics and Anti-Competitive Behavior: Evidence from the European Commission’s Decisions," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 39(3), pages 207-230, November.
    6. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. 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..
    9. Mats Bergman & Malcolm Coate & Maria Jakobsson & Shawn Ulrick, 2010. "Comparing Merger Policies in the European Union and the United States," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 36(4), pages 305-331, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Sunel Grimbeek & Steve Koch & Richard Grimbeek, 2013. "The Consistency of Merger Decisions at the South African Competition Commission," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 81(4), pages 561-580, December.
    12. Diego S. Cardoso & Mariusa M. Pitelli & Adelson M. Figueiredo, 2021. "An Econometric Analysis of the Brazilian Merger Policy," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 59(1), pages 103-132, August.
    13. Joan Canton & Maia David & Bernard Sinclair-Desgagné, 2007. "Environmental regulation and mergers within the eco-industry," Working Papers 2007/01, INRA, Economie Publique.
    14. Prince M. Changole & Willem H. Boshoff, 2022. "Non-competition Goals and Their Impact on South African Merger Control: An Empirical Analysis," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 60(3), pages 361-401, May.
    15. Richard J. Grimbeek & Sunel Grimbeek & Steven F. Koch, 2011. "The Consistency of Merger Decisions in a Developing Country: The South African Competition Commission," Working Papers 201117, University of Pretoria, Department of Economics.
    16. Canton, Joan & David, Maia & Sinclair-Desgagné, Bernard, 2012. "Environmental Regulation and Horizontal Mergers in the Eco-industry," Strategic Behavior and the Environment, now publishers, vol. 2(2), pages 107-132, July.
    17. Klein, Gordon J. & Günster, Andrea, 2013. "Enforcement of European Competition Policy - Impact on Competition and Efficiency," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79989, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    18. Marcos Avalos & Rafael E. De Hoyos, 2008. "An Empirical Analysis of Mexican Merger Policy," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 32(2), pages 113-130, March.
    19. Coate Malcolm B., 2006. "Economic Models and the Merger Guidelines: A Case Study," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 2(1), pages 53-84, May.
    20. Qing Yang & Michael Pickford, 2014. "The Merger Clearance Decision Process in New Zealand: Application of a New Two-Stage Probit Model," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 44(3), pages 299-325, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    merger control; behavioural and structural remedies; discrete choice models;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General
    • D78 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Positive Analysis of Policy Formulation and Implementation

    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:hig:wpaper:62/ec/2014. 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: Shamil Abdulaev or Shamil Abdulaev (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.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.