1 / 9

Transatlantic Competition Policy: Domestic and International Sources of EU-US Cooperation

Transatlantic Competition Policy: Domestic and International Sources of EU-US Cooperation. Chad Damro University of Edinburgh United Kingdom. RESEARCH QUESTION. Why did the EU and US create a formal framework for cooperation in competition policy?. THEORY. R. Putnam and H. Milner

milica
Télécharger la présentation

Transatlantic Competition Policy: Domestic and International Sources of EU-US Cooperation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TransatlanticCompetition Policy:Domestic and International Sources of EU-US Cooperation Chad Damro University of Edinburgh United Kingdom

  2. RESEARCH QUESTION Why did the EU and US create a formal framework for cooperation in competition policy?

  3. THEORY • R. Putnam and H. Milner • Focus on COGs • No role for regulators in negotiation of cooperation • I saw regulators as playing a big role • Domestic politics were clearly important • So, what is to be done? • Explore… • Structural independent variable(s) that explains the cooperation? • Intervening variable(s) that explains variation on that cooperation?

  4. VARIABLES • Dependent Variable: EU-US creation of a formal framework for cooperation in competition policy • Ind. Var.: Econ Internationalisation (EI) • Intervening Variable: Domestic Politics

  5. INDEPENDENT VARIABLE • Economic Internationalization (EI) • Changes in IPE changed behavior of firms • Multiple figures/measures • Firms began merging across borders and becoming subject to multiple separate national competition laws • Could lead to conflicting regulatory decisions on whether to approve a merger

  6. INTERVENING VARIABLE • Domestic politics • Regulators wanted to avoid such conflicting decisions. • Politicians get involved in such decisions… • Regulators want to avoid such interventions • Clearly I had a case of regulator-politician relations! • Explained with Principal-Agent Model (PAM) • Regulators sought international regulatory cooperation—increases in info exchanges—to reduce likelihood of political intervention • Regulators began negotiating info exchanges • Regulators were acting as COGs

  7. CASE STUDY • 1991 EU-US Bilateral Competition Agreement • Regulators negotiated under discretionary authority • France (Spain and Netherlands) intervened and brought case to ECJ • Major case: Without doing so, Commission would have acquired de facto authority to negotiate cooperative agreements in all policy areas!!!! • France won • Renegotiation resulted in EU competition regulators conforming to newly established political control mechanism

  8. CONCLUSIONS I • Theoretical KEYS: • Regulator and politician preferences differ • Regulators remain constrained by domestic institutions • Regulators pursue cooperation via their discretionary authority • Regulators play important role in explaining why int’l cooperative framework is largely discretionary and created by non-treaty int’l agreement.

  9. CONCLUSIONS II • EI is structural cause of EU-US cooperation, the precise effect of which is accounted for by intervening variable (domestic politics), which is simplified w/ PAM • PAM can reveal some dynamics of domestic politics that help to explain IR • We need more studies of cooperation based on non-treaty international agreements

More Related