The impact of mergers on innovation in EU merger control

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 94-101
Author(s):  
Pascale Déchamps ◽  
Ilaria Fanton

Are mergers good for innovation or do they hinder it? Finding a balance between protecting competition in innovation and allowing consolidation in markets where efficiencies might be generated has proven one of the biggest challenges of merger control in recent years. Although economic literature provides helpful pointers in striking that balance, it does not provide a general unambiguous framework. Competition authorities consider both aspects and may seem to have adopted different approaches to this issue in traditional markets (e.g. pharmaceuticals and pesticides) compared to digital markets. While the debate is still ongoing, this article summarizes the theoretical framework from the economic literature and how it has been applied in real recent cases by competition authorities.

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 151-161
Author(s):  
Stephen Whitfield ◽  
Richard J. Brown ◽  
Ingrid Rogers

There has been an increased focus of the European Commission and numerous national competition authorities on data-related mergers, which also fits more generally in the context of a broader global competition law focus on the ‘FAANGs’ (i.e., Facebook, Apple, Amazon, Netflix and Google) and the wider tech sector. This article considers the impact of data on EU merger control and explores the theories of harm and legal frameworks which have been applied and developed in considering data-related competition concerns, in particular the notable developments in the Commission's recent consideration of Apple's acquisition of Shazam. The article considers that the impact of these developments is that data-related mergers should no longer be assessed by reference to traditional economic indicators such as market shares and concentration levels only, but rather also in the context of the broader global competition law focus on big tech.


2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 120-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shahriyar Mukhtarov ◽  
Sugra Humbatova ◽  
İlgar Seyfullayev

This study explores the relationship between bank credits, exchange rate and non-oil GDP in Azerbaijan, utilizing FMOLS, CCR and DOLS co-integration methods to the data spanning from January 2005 to January 2019. The results from the different co-integration methods are consistent with each other and approve the presence of a long-run relationship among the variables. Estimation results reveal that there is a positive and statistically significant impact of bank credits and exchange rate on the non-oil GDP in the long run for the Azerbaijani case which are in line with the expectations and with the theoretical findings discussed in theoretical framework section. This finding also indicates that a 1% increase in credit and real exchange rate increases non-oil GDP by 0.51% and 0.56%, respectively. The results of this paper are useful for the policymakers and promote the economic literature for further researches in the case of oil-rich countries.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Bretz ◽  
Marie Leppard

2006 ◽  
Vol 11 (03) ◽  
pp. 207-231 ◽  
Author(s):  
ALLAN O'CONNOR ◽  
JOSE M. RAMOS

This study explores how education and development in the skills and knowledge of foresight, innovation and enterprise (FI and E) relate to the empowerment of young individuals with respect to creating a new venture. In 2003, three groups of young persons aged between 13 and 18 years participated in a program designed for empowerment. An evaluation was conducted nine months later that provided useful insight into the impact of the education design, content and delivery. This research provides deeper insight into the way FI and E education can be used to create empowerment through the derivation of a framework that addresses entry, process and agency factors.


2012 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 363-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Varkevisser ◽  
Frederik T. Schut

AbstractIn markets where hospitals are expected to compete, preventive merger control aims to prohibit anticompetitive mergers. In the hospital industry, however, the standard method for defining the relevant market (SSNIP) is difficult to apply and alternative approaches have proven inaccurate. Experiences from the United States show that courts, by identifying overly broad geographic markets, have underestimated the anticompetitive effects of hospital mergers. We examine how geographic hospital markets are defined in Germany and the Netherlands where market-oriented reforms have created room for hospital competition. For each country, we discuss a landmark case where definition of the geographic market played a decisive role. Our findings indicate that defining geographic hospital markets in both countries is less complicated than in the United States, where antitrust analysis must take managed care organisations into account. We also find that different methods result in much more stringent hospital merger control in Germany than in the Netherlands. Given the uncertainties in defining hospital markets, the German competition authority seems to be inclined to avoid the risk of being too permissive; the opposite holds for the Dutch competition authority. We argue that for society the costs of being too permissive with regard to hospital mergers may be larger than the costs of being too stringent.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Ya-Wen Lei

Abstract Literature on scientific controversies has inadequately attended to the impact of globalization and, more specifically, the emergence of China as a leader in scientific research. To bridge this gap in the literature, this article develops a theoretical framework to analyse global scientific controversies surrounding research in China. The framework highlights the existence of four overlapping discursive arenas: China's national public sphere and national expert sphere, the transnational public sphere and the transnational expert sphere. It then examines the struggles over inclusion/exclusion and publicity within these spheres as well as the within- and across-sphere effects of such struggles. Empirically, the article analyses the human genome editing controversy surrounding research conducted by scientists in China between 2015 and 2019. It shows how elite scientists negotiated expert–public relationships within and across the national and transnational expert spheres, how unexpected disruption at the nexus of the four spheres disrupted expert–public relationships as envisioned by elite experts, and how the Chinese state intervened to redraw the boundary between openness and secrecy at both national and transnational levels.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document