Jorge Vianna Monteiro’s Post

crucial reading, specially in the case of Brazilian Economic institutions.

New Insights on Policy Adoption! Dr. Stefano Carattini, Assistant Professor of Economics, has published research showing that systematically studying policy experiences can significantly improve policy adoption outcomes. This approach could be a game changer for policymakers seeking more effective and widely accepted policies. Discover the full article here to learn more: https://lnkd.in/g4sdsCEQ

#Antitrust #AbuseofDominance Last week, the International Center for Law & Economics submitted comments (linked below) on the Article 102 TFEU (Abuse of Dominance) Draft Guidelines published by the European Commission. The Draft Guidelines, unfortunately, do not provide much guidance on how economic agents should construe Competition Law. They could be summarized as a effort to lower the legal standard and burden of proof to find an abuse of dominance and do that resorting to formalistic categorizations and watering down the "effects-based" analysis. The Draft Guidelines are, apparently, motived by the belief that more “vigorous” enforcement of Art. 102 TFEU is needed "in view of growing market concentration in various industries and the digitisation of the Union economy". But evidence of a general trend of market concentrations is shaky; and, as we know, market concentration is not, in itself, a bad thing. Moreover, moving competition law away from the “effects-based” approach (or “more-economic” approach) is apt to make it more hostile to novel business conduct and to punish pro-competitive business conduct. From a policy perspective, it would be unwise, to say the least, to take such a turn at a time when Europe is lagging other global markets in productivity and competitiveness (see, i.e., the Draghi Report). Dirk Auer,Lazar Radic Geoffrey Manne.

On August 1, 2024, the European Commission has published the long-awaited draft Guidelines addressing exclusionary abuses of dominance. In our latest article, our colleagues Paulo Abecasis, Federico De Michiel, Tuomas Haanperä, and Kalle Kantanen, share their initial views on the role of economic analysis and price-cost test outlined in these draft Guidelines.   Important Highlights:   - Examination of the price-cost test’s role in assessing “competition on the merits” and “capability to produce exclusionary effects” - Analysis on the application of price-cost test in specific price-based conducts  - Insights on the European Commission’s approach for the protection of less-efficient competitors   Why It Matters: The price-cost test has been seen as an important tool to guarantee legal certainty and preserve the as-efficient competitor principle when assessing a dominant firm’s pricing practices. Our article provides an overview of the draft Guidelines’ approach to this test and its implications for market competition.   Read the full article on our website here: https://lnkd.in/eyThAYvd   Stay informed on the latest developments in competition law and economic analysis with Copenhagen Economics.

Great piece by Soumaya Keynes summarising weaknesses in the relationship between policy and academia and practical steps to improve- for the benefit of both (and benefit of everyone, to be fair!). https://lnkd.in/eWcsDEPv

#IntellectualDiscourse #Sneer In a recent discourse, while his approach may be perceived as provocative, it reflects a commitment to intellectual engagement and the pursuit of truth. It challenges the Economist to defend the validity of their analyses and engage in constructive dialogue, ultimately enriching our collective understanding of economic theory and practice. The "sneering" commentary prompts a challenge to the status quo, encouraging a culture of intellectual rigor and critical inquiry, essential for the advancement of the discipline. At its core, it highlights the need for one to acknowledge the diverse perspectives and interests that inform their work, fostering a more inclusive and nuanced understanding of economic phenomena. This sparks a broader conversation about the relationship between economics and policymaking by questioning the authority often accorded to economic models and a reexamination of how economic theory translates into real-world policy decisions. This is crucial for ensuring that policies are grounded in robust evidence and responsive to the complex realities of society. #ShaBThoughts #PersonalOpinion

Our Senior Fellow, Cento Veljanovski, writes on the evolution of the admissibility of expert economic evidence in competition cases. Sir Marcus Smith, President of the Competition Appeal Tribunal, has expressed concerns over the way economists give evidence in competition cases. Namely, economists do not understand and adhere to the rules of evidence, and their use of statistical evidence differs from how lawyers and judges think about evidence. Here I respond to these claims as an economist expert witness to show that the ‘interplanetary divide’ between lawyers and economists is not as stark as portrayed and can be reconciled and accommodated. As the role of economic evidence has increased so too has the complexity of competition cases generating challenges for the courts, lawyers, parties and experts. Stricter adherence to the rules of evidence is not however the key to regulating expert evidence. The CAT has an arsenal of possible controls and is innovating new procedural rules to encourage the relevance and proportionality of expert evidence. The interpretation of statistical evidence poses a challenge for the parties and the court. The challenge comes not so much from its technical nature and different concepts of proof but the selective presentation of results that favour the experts’ respective clients which impair its probative value as shown in Royal Mail. The court can be expected to respond by developing clear protocols for the admissibility of such evidence. See article at https://lnkd.in/e9Tqd9-d

Economic expert reports often refer to statistically significant or insignificant results to indicate the degree of statistical uncertainty in estimates. This uncertainty affects the evidential weight of the estimates and should be considered in legal assessments. In a new article in WuW - WIRTSCHAFT und WETTBEWERB (Competition Law & Economics), #CRACompetition's Johannes Dittrich, Sebastian Panthöfer, and Lars Wiethaus explain statistical significance and essential concepts like standard errors, hypothesis testing, p-values, and confidence intervals in simple terms. They emphasize that while these concepts help determine the reliability of estimates relevant to competition law, statistical significance and regression analysis more broadly is only one part of the overall assessment and needs to be combined with a qualitative analysis of the facts. To read the full article, click here: https://crai.news/jct

On November 7, 2024, the Supreme Court of India passed a landmark judgment reinterpreting Article 39B of the Constitution to exclude private properties from the ambit of "material resources of the community." While previously, all resources of an individual could fall under Article 39B for redistribution by the State, the re-interpretation strikes a balance between property rights and public welfare. Now, private properties "may" fall within Article 39B only upon meeting certain conditions. Indicatively, this judgment clarifies that only certain resources—such as forests, ponds, wetlands, spectrum, airwaves, minerals, and natural gas—when privately owned, may be subject to redistribution by State, given their scarcity and finite nature. What I find fascinating are the many real-world implications of this judgment beyond legal theory, and how it serves to contour India's economic policy in this era of privatisation. It also potentially opens avenues for litigation against past State Acts that nationalized or redistributed privately-owned resources and industries in the spirit of Article 39B. A bit of context- while the earlier interpretation aligned with the idea of a socialist India, it created a fundamental clash with India's economic priorities post the 1991 liberalisation and the right to property formalised under Article 300A of the Constitution. Infact, the Constituent Assembly debates reveal that lawmakers never sought any one economic structure for India, but rather believed in economic democracy, leaving it to the future generations to decide the best way forward to achieve it. This scope of interpretation invites some crucial questions for all of us. Should the State have the authority to override individual property rights for the greater good? What should be the limits and mechanisms for distributing private resources—should the State adopt policies that subtly guide usage, or take more direct approaches like nationalization? Given India's current economic landscape, what’s the optimal way to manage our shared resources? These are, indeed, million-dollar questions that deserve discourse beyond legal theory. Civil society and other stakeholders must engage in these discussions, as the implications extend far beyond the legal domain—they affect our daily lives, our values, and our collective future. A nuanced interpretation of "material resources of the community" could well shape how India addresses complex questions of growth, equity, and sustainability looming upon us. Moreover, by reversing an age old jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed how the Constitution of India is a living document that aligns with the changing times, values and economic priorities of the country. The stage is now set for us to address some complex questions for our future!!

‘’Who's Afraid of Policy Experiments?’’ 🧐 In recent years, as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have gained popularity in policy research, concerns about their supposed implementation challenges, external validity, and ethical concerns have emerged. Common pushback includes: “Unfortunately we don’t have the necessary in-house skills”; “Are you suggesting that turning people into lab rats promotes social welfare?”; “Sounds expensive! There's hardly any money for covering our programs as it is”... These concerns are shared by politicians, policymakers and some researchers, who often anticipate public resistance to rigorous evaluations. 👏 However, new research by Dur et al. reveals an encouraging insight: voters in fact value the generation of evidence via policy experiments! 💡 Carried out in The Netherlands, the study finds that voters appreciate experiments particularly when they lack strong opinions on a given policy, aligning with the idea that rigorous findings may effectively inform policy-making. 🗳️ Furthermore, voters are more likely to support their preferred party if it advocates for policy experimentation. 🥴 While voters are split on concerns like fairness, consent, and validity in policy experiments, many believe politicians avoid these experiments due to fear of losing votes—despite voter support for policy experiments. At Experimental we believe that politicians underestimating voter's ability to grasp experimental policy are missing an opportunity to resonate with a powerful and pertinent message. If you're a policymaker eager to drive meaningful change, reach out to us—we’d love to collaborate. And for everyone else, stay tuned for our next post, where we’ll debunk common myths about policy experimentation! Read the full working paper here: https://lnkd.in/duCNszYg