Exclusive Safeguards and Technology Transfer: Subcontracting Agreements in Eastern Europe's Car Component Industry.

We study the rationale for the use of exclusivity to protect transfer of technology in subcontracting agreements. The legal possibility arises through the EU Notice on Subcontracting. Empirically, the link between exclusive agreements and technology transfer among firms in the automotive supply industry in EU candidate countries is surprisingly weak, although with exclusive-supply or exclusive-buying clauses in subcontracting agreements upstream transfer of technology is more likely. Exclusive agreements are often reciprocal, and are typically passed on. Downstream firms are more likely to face and use vertical restraints. Technology trickles upstream: Multinational final assemblers transfer more technology than lower-tier suppliers.vertical restraints: technology transfer; automotive supply networks; competition policy

Competition Compliance: Limits to Competition Policy Harmonisation in EU Enlargement

The paper analyses the extent of and the reasons behind limits to competition policy harmonisation in EU enlargement. Our focus is on vertical restraints. First, we compare the relevant legal regimes towards vertical agreements in the EU and in Eastern Europe. We then describe competition policy practice in all ten EU candidate countries and point out differences both between East and West and among the candidates. Finally, we examine a large database of inter-firm agreements in Eastern Europe's car industry and use insights from case studies of subcontracting to highlight instances of non-conformity between (1) East European competition law and practice and (2) EU rules and East European competition law enforcement. The conclusion recommends how to improve competition policy practice, and thus compliance, post-enlargement.antitrust law; EU enlargement; empirical studies

Market Transparency and Competition Policy.

We survey some of the literature on the effects of improved market transparency on competition in oligopoly. Generally, improved transparency from the perspective of firms makes detection of deviations from tacitly collusive agreements easier, thus facilitating oligopolistic coordination. On the other hand, improved transparency from the perspective of consumers, particularly in terms of easier comparability of goods characteristics, has ambiguous effects: More elastic demands make deviations from collusive prices more profitable to firms in the short run, but they also make future retaliation by rivals more severe. Which of these forces will dominate in a dynamic oligopoly competition is shown to depend on the markets-specifics. In light of the theoretical results, we discuss the likely effects on inter-firm competition of information exchange and online trading institutions as well as the American and European competition policy attitude towards market transparency.market transparency; repeated oligopoly; secret price-cutting; customer switching

Market Transparency: A Mixed Blessing?

Antitrust practitioners and consumers protectionists often argue that market transparency should be improved to allow consumers to shop around for bargain prices thereby putting pressure on oligopolists´ pricing. We model how transparency, interpreted as the comparability from the point of view of consumers of the characteristics of goods and services, affects the outcome of a repeated oligopoly. Improved transparency may make consumers switch suppliers more easily. This increases the static temptation of individual firms to deviate from tacitly agreed prices, but at the same time the future punishment may become more severe. When the number of firms is small, the "optimal degree of transparency" may not be perfect transparency, unless the oligopolists may rely on sophisticated, optimal punishment strategies. When the number of firms grows larger, the optimal degree of transparency increases, and from some point onward perfect transparency is optimal. We discuss the various policy implications of these results.market transparency; customer switching; repeated oligopoly

Inconsequential harmonization of Danish competition law

By replicating Articles 85 and 86 of the EC Treaty the Danish Competition Act (put in force January 1998) constituted a shift from the control principle to the prohibition principle. This is an important improvement from the point of view that regulatory legislation should be designed to give business economics incentives to act in a socially beneficial way, placing the burden of efficiency losses at the party who can avoid such losses at the least expected cost. The act now correctly makes businessses ex ante liable, but two equally important elements of an optimally designed antitrust legislation are missing: (1) The authority of the enforcing agency to impose administrative fines of a magnitude that makes the expected cost of infringements negative; (2) An appropriate organizational structure. With these two deficiencies the practical signifiance of the shift of principle is likely to be insignificant

Markedsmagt

nana