An Analytical Review of the Choices / Priorities made by Ireland's Competition Authority / Competition and Consumer Protection Commission 1991-2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers some of the choices and priorities made by Ireland's Competition Authority / Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (CCPC') in the years 1991-2016. It is therefore a useful insight into the privatization choices made by a mature competition system during a quarter of a century which is a sufficient time horizon to give reliable results. Moreover, Ireland is an interesting economy to study for various reasons including its open nature, Common Law background, membership of the European Union, unusual system of the competition agency concentrating on investigations while findings of guilt and the imposition of penalties are left to the courts. The CCPC is also worth examining because it shows the interaction of competition law and consumer protection law in setting priorities. The paper makes a number of observations including that privatization is essential for agencies but it is necessarily a vague and imprecise process which must be localized to be useful. The paper also observes that failures by an agency (e.g., losing a case in court) is not entirely unwelcome because complete success would indicate that only safe cases were being instituted. The paper also raises the question of whether privatization should be revealed at all. The paper studies the nature and level of interference in the setting of priorities in Ireland and finds that the Irish agency has been largely free of external influences but has itself influenced externally (e.g., in proposing legislative changes). The Irish agency's preference for prioritizing cartels is contrasted with the preference of private plaintiffs for abuse of dominance cases. The paper recognizes that prioritization on specific issues evolves over time but the fundamental priorities remain constant.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".