The present analysis investigates the rationale for delegation to domestic institutions in the EU. This issue is prominent in merger control, where the Commission can refer the assessment of concentrations between undertakings to national competition authorities. We argue that the purpose of referrals is to reduce the decision-making costs. Employing data from 2004 to 2012, we show that the recourse to national authorities is associated with taking advantage of agency expertise and shifting the blame for policy failures. Conversely, referrals are not grounded on the need to reduce the number of pending cases. These results hold when controlling for confounding factors such as the involvement of non-EU countries, the different commissioners for competition, and sensitive economic sectors.
AydinUThomasKP (2012) The challenges and trajectories of EU competition policy in the twenty-first century. Journal of European Integration34(6): 531–547.
2.
BallmannAEpsteinDO'HalloranS (2002) Delegation, comitology and the separation of powers in the European Union. International Organization56(3): 551–574.
3.
BergmanMAJakobssonMRazoC (2005) An econometric analysis of the European Commission's merger decisions. International Journal of Industrial Organization23(9): 717–737.
4.
Benz A and Zimmer C (2010) The EU’s competences: The ‘vertical’ perspective on the multilevel system. Living Reviews in European Governance 5(1). Available at: http://www.livingreviews.org/lreg-2010-1 (accessed 2 December 2015).
5.
BulmerS (1994) Institutions and policy change in the European Communities: The case of merger control. Public Administration72(3): 423–444.
6.
CallanderS (2008) A theory of policy expertise. Quarterly Journal of Political Science3(2): 123–140.
7.
CiniMMcGowanL (2008) Competition Policy in the European Union, New York, NY: Palgrave-Macmillan.
8.
CseresK (2010) Comparing laws in the enforcement of EU and national competition laws. European Journal of Legal Studies3(1): 7–44.
9.
DamroC (2006) The new trade politics and EU competition policy: Shopping for convergence and co-operation. Journal of European Public Policy13(6): 867–886.
10.
DamroC (2007) EU delegation and agency in international trade negotiations: A cautionary comparison. Journal of Common Market Studies45(4): 883–903.
11.
DamroCGuayT (2012) Transatlantic merger relations: The pursuit of cooperation and convergence. Journal of European Integration34(6): 643–666.
12.
DehousseR (2008) Delegation of powers in the European Union: The need or a multi-principals model. West European Politics31(4): 798–805.
13.
DoleysTJ (2000) Member states and the European Commission: Theoretical insights from the new economics of organization. Journal of European Public Policy7(4): 532–553.
14.
DoleysT (2009) Incomplete contracting, commission discretion and the origins of EU merger control. Journal of Common Market Studies47(3): 483–506.
15.
DusoTGuglerKSzücsF (2013) An empirical assessment of the 2004 EU merger policy reform. Economic Journal123(572): 596–619.
16.
DusoTGuglerKYurtogluBB (2011) How effective is European merger control?European Economic Review55(7): 980–1006.
17.
EpsteinDO'HalloranS (1999) Delegating Powers, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
FranchinoF (2002) Efficiency of credibility? Testing the two logics of delegation to the European Commission. Journal of European Public Policy9(5): 677–694.
22.
FranchinoF (2004) Delegating powers in the European community. British Journal of Political Science34(2): 269–293.
23.
FranchinoF (2007) The Powers of the Union: Delegation in the EU, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24.
GrantJNevenD (2005) The attempted merger between general electric and honeywell: A case study of transatlantic conflict. Journal of Competition Law and Economics1(3): 599–633.
25.
GuidiM (2014) Delegation and varieties of capitalism: Explaining the independence of national competition agencies in the European Union. Comparative European Politics12(3): 343–365.
26.
HuberJDShipanCR (2002) Deliberate Discretion: The Institutional Foundations of Bureaucratic Autonomy, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
27.
KassimHMenonA (2003) The principal-agent approach and the study of the European Union: Promise unfulfilled?Journal of European Public Policy10(1): 121–139.
28.
KassimHWrightK (2009) Bringing regulatory processes back. In: The reform of EU antitrust and merger control. West European Politics32(4): 738–755.
29.
KuenzlerAWarlouzetL (2013) National traditions of competition law: A belated Europeanization through convergence? In: PatelKSchweitzerH (eds) The Historical Foundations of EU Competition Law, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 89–123.
30.
LaudatiL (1996) The European Commission as regulator: The uncertain pursuit of the competitive market. In: MajoneG (ed.) Regulating Europe, London: Routledge, pp. 229–263.
31.
LevyN (2005) Mario Monti's legacy in EC merger control. Competition Policy International1(1): 99–132.
32.
LupiaAMcCubbinsM (1994) Learning from oversight: Fire alarms and police patrols reconstructed. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization10(1): 96–125.
33.
LyonsBR (2004) Reform of European Merger Policy. Review of International Economics12(2): 246–261.
34.
McGowanLCiniM (1999) Discretion and politicization in EU competition policy: The case of merger control. Governance12(2): 175–200.
35.
McGowanLWilksS (1995) The first supranational policy in the European Union: Competition policy. European Journal of Political Research28(2): 141–169.
36.
MaherIBillietSDermotH (2009) The principal-agent approach to EU studies: Apply liberally but handle with care. Comparative European Politics7(4): 409–413.
37.
Majone G (ed.) (1996) Regulating Europe. London: Routledge.
38.
MajoneG (2001) Two logics of delegation: Agency and fiduciary relations in EU governance. European Union Politics2(1): 103–122.
39.
MorganEJMcGuireS (2004) Transatlantic divergence. GE-honeywell and the EU's merger policy. Journal of European Public Policy11(1): 39–56.
40.
PollackMA (1997) Delegation, agency and agenda setting in the European Community. International Organization51(1): 99–134.
41.
PollackMA (2003) The Engines of European Integration: Delegation, Agency, and Agenda Setting in the EU, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
42.
SchwartzE (1993) Politics as usual: The history of European community merger control. Yale Journal of International Law18(2): 607–662.
43.
SeidelK (2009) DG IV and the origins of a supranational competition policy: Establishing an economic constitution for Europe. In: KaiserWLeuchtBRasmussenM (eds) The History of the European Union: Origins of a Trans- and Supranational Polity 1950–1972, New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 129–147.
44.
ShipanCRVoldenC (2014) When the smoke clears: Expertise, learning and policy diffusion. Journal of Public Policy34(3): 357–387.
45.
TallbergJ (2002) Delegation to supranational institutions: Why, how, and with what consequences?West European Politics25(1): 23–46.
46.
ThatcherM (2002) Regulation after delegation: Independent regulatory agencies in Europe. Journal of European Public Policy9(6): 954–972.
47.
ThatcherM (2014) European Commission merger control: Combining competition and the creation of larger European firms. European Journal of Political Research53(3): 443–464.
48.
VickersJ (2004) Merger policy in Europe: Retrospect and prospect. European Competition Law Review25(7): 455–463.
49.
WarlouzetL (2016) The centralization of EU competition policy: Historical institutionalist dynamics from cartel monitoring to merger control (1956–91). Journal of Common Market Studies54(3): 725–741.
50.
WeitbrechtA (2005) EU merger control in 2004 – An overview. European Competition Law Review26(2): 67–74.
51.
WilksS (2005) Agency escape: Decentralization or dominance of the European Commission in the modernization of competition policy. Governance18(3): 431–452.
