Comparing the Role of Economics/Effects-Based in Antitrust Enforcement and Its Relation to the Judicial Review in the EC to Other Countries*
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The last 25 or so years are widely considered as witnessing, in many jurisdictions throughout the world, a substantial increase in the role of economists and, though this view has not relied on much formal empirical backing, even in the extent and sophistication of economic analysis applied in the assessment of cases and in reaching decisions in competition law (CL) enforcement. A few countries, such as the USA and Canada, are generally thought of as leading the way in this regard. But whilst this view, or, better, hypothesis, can be thought of as uncontroversial for merger control, it is far from uncontroversial for antitrust enforcement in many jurisdictions.1 This paper contributes a comparative empirical investigation of the role of economics in the antitrust enforcement decisions of the EC, France, Greece, and Russia.2 The extent to which the assessment of conducts in specific antitrust cases relies on economic analysis depends on the legal standard (LS) (or decision rule) that is used to make the assessment. The theoretical analysis of the choice of LSs by Competition Authorities (abbreviated, henceforth, to CAs) and courts has been to a large extent normative analysis, looking at the determination of optimal LSs, either from the point of view of error-cost minimisation3 or welfare maximisation.4 More recently, there have also been contributions in the positive analysis of utility maximising CAs making LS choices that reflect their reputational and operational cost-minimisation concerns.5
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it