{"title":"科瓦卡的合并、合并控制和补救:对科瓦卡的反驳","authors":"M. Vita","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3098855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"John Kwoka’s Mergers, Merger Control, and Remedies is a meta-analysis of “retrospective” academic studies of consummated mergers and other horizontal arrangements. Based on this meta-analysis, Kwoka strongly criticizes federal enforcement policies, claiming that the agencies permit far too many anticompetitive mergers to go unchallenged, and are far too willing to accept remedies that fail to prevent a significant loss of competition. Kwoka claims further that this excessive leniency is culmination of a trend reflecting deliberate policy choices made over the last several decades. In a forthcoming critique, Vita & Osinski challenge Kwoka’s analysis and his conclusions, identifying serious flaws in the size, construction, and composition of his sample, and in the statistical analysis of the data drawn from that sample. In a published response to Vita & Osinski, Professor Kwoka offers a number of objections and counter-arguments. In this rejoinder, I respond to Professor Kwoka.","PeriodicalId":245576,"journal":{"name":"CSR & Management Practice eJournal","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kwoka’s Mergers, Merger Control, and Remedies: Rejoinder to Kwoka\",\"authors\":\"M. Vita\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3098855\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"John Kwoka’s Mergers, Merger Control, and Remedies is a meta-analysis of “retrospective” academic studies of consummated mergers and other horizontal arrangements. Based on this meta-analysis, Kwoka strongly criticizes federal enforcement policies, claiming that the agencies permit far too many anticompetitive mergers to go unchallenged, and are far too willing to accept remedies that fail to prevent a significant loss of competition. Kwoka claims further that this excessive leniency is culmination of a trend reflecting deliberate policy choices made over the last several decades. In a forthcoming critique, Vita & Osinski challenge Kwoka’s analysis and his conclusions, identifying serious flaws in the size, construction, and composition of his sample, and in the statistical analysis of the data drawn from that sample. In a published response to Vita & Osinski, Professor Kwoka offers a number of objections and counter-arguments. In this rejoinder, I respond to Professor Kwoka.\",\"PeriodicalId\":245576,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CSR & Management Practice eJournal\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CSR & Management Practice eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3098855\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CSR & Management Practice eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3098855","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
John Kwoka的《合并、合并控制和补救》是对已完成合并和其他横向安排的“回顾性”学术研究的荟萃分析。基于这一元分析,Kwoka强烈批评了联邦执法政策,声称这些机构允许太多的反竞争合并不受挑战,并且太愿意接受无法防止重大竞争损失的补救措施。Kwoka进一步声称,这种过度宽容是过去几十年来深思熟虑的政策选择的趋势的高潮。在即将发表的评论中,Vita和Osinski对Kwoka的分析和结论提出了挑战,指出了他的样本的大小、结构和组成以及样本数据的统计分析中的严重缺陷。在一篇针对Vita & Osinski的公开回应中,Kwoka教授提出了一些反对意见和反驳意见。我在此反驳郭冈教授。
Kwoka’s Mergers, Merger Control, and Remedies: Rejoinder to Kwoka
John Kwoka’s Mergers, Merger Control, and Remedies is a meta-analysis of “retrospective” academic studies of consummated mergers and other horizontal arrangements. Based on this meta-analysis, Kwoka strongly criticizes federal enforcement policies, claiming that the agencies permit far too many anticompetitive mergers to go unchallenged, and are far too willing to accept remedies that fail to prevent a significant loss of competition. Kwoka claims further that this excessive leniency is culmination of a trend reflecting deliberate policy choices made over the last several decades. In a forthcoming critique, Vita & Osinski challenge Kwoka’s analysis and his conclusions, identifying serious flaws in the size, construction, and composition of his sample, and in the statistical analysis of the data drawn from that sample. In a published response to Vita & Osinski, Professor Kwoka offers a number of objections and counter-arguments. In this rejoinder, I respond to Professor Kwoka.