Policy Formulation, Implementation and Feedback in EU Merger Control



20

objective of European merger policy itself. As previously discussed, the MCR’s objective
since its conception has been regulation of the consolidation of firms seeking to compete
in Europe and ultimately, globally, regardless of costs to workers. Evidence of this ‘prime
objective’ of merger regulation was seen recently when Goetrz Drauz, the director of the
MTF, justified no codified role for labour in the MCR by stating that the regulations only
allow for blocking mergers on competition grounds, not “...the employment effects of
deals” (Shishkin and Winestock 2000).

A final factor that explains labour’s insignificant role relates to its power position
vis-à-vis the other actors, namely capital and the MTF. As above, both the MTF and firm
actors were respective of each other, not only because their overall goals were self-
supporting, but also because they represented a threat to each other should a satisfactory
solution to both not be found. However, this was not the situation for labour. On the one
hand, its goals of employment maintenance were particularly at odds with capital and
were irrelevant to the goals of the MTF who desired extension of its institutional power.
On the other, labour did not particularly pose any threat to either party if a solution
inconsistent to its goals were achieved. This suggests that labour was restricted not only
because it was consciously excluded by the other participants (even though it was), but
also because its relative power position was never a threat to other participants who
would have otherwise been forced to negotiate with it.

Conclusions

Analysing both the formulation of the EU’s Merger Control Regulation (MCR) as
well as the implementation of MCR rules during the
Nestlé/Perrier merger, the paper has
examined the development of the EU-level merger control policy communities and
attempted to explain this based on private interest theory. The main conclusions are two
fold, where the first relates to contributions of our understanding of different, but related,
communities that may emerge during different stages of the policy process and the
second relates to how the development of such communities can be explained based on
private interest theory.



More intriguing information

1. Momentum in Australian Stock Returns: An Update
2. Announcement effects of convertible bond loans versus warrant-bond loans: An empirical analysis for the Dutch market
3. Economie de l’entrepreneur faits et théories (The economics of entrepreneur facts and theories)
4. The name is absent
5. Surveying the welfare state: challenges, policy development and causes of resilience
6. Ultrametric Distance in Syntax
7. APPLYING BIOSOLIDS: ISSUES FOR VIRGINIA AGRICULTURE
8. TOMOGRAPHIC IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION OF FAN-BEAM PROJECTIONS WITH EQUIDISTANT DETECTORS USING PARTIALLY CONNECTED NEURAL NETWORKS
9. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
10. The name is absent
11. LOCAL CONTROL AND IMPROVEMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICE
12. TINKERING WITH VALUATION ESTIMATES: IS THERE A FUTURE FOR WILLINGNESS TO ACCEPT MEASURES?
13. The effect of globalisation on industrial districts in Italy: evidence from the footwear sector
14. An Intertemporal Benchmark Model for Turkey’s Current Account
15. The name is absent
16. The name is absent
17. Education and Development: The Issues and the Evidence
18. The name is absent
19. Monetary Policy News and Exchange Rate Responses: Do Only Surprises Matter?
20. Correlation Analysis of Financial Contagion: What One Should Know Before Running a Test