THE CUSTOMER IS SOMETIMES RIGHT: THE ROLE OF CUSTOMER VIEWS IN MERGER INVESTIGATIONS

Antitrust enforcement officials and practitioners generallyagree that customers should have a prominent role in the mergerreview process. The question of the appropriate level of reliancethat competition authorities and courts should give to customertestimony has been the subject of considerable debate sincethe Arch Coal and Oracle decisions. This paper contains a comprehensivediscussion of the use of customer testimony throughout the U.S.merger review process, from the initial merger notificationfiling to injunction proceedings in federal court. We discussthe benefits from and problems with the use of customer testimony,including how these problems have led to litigation losses forthe U.S. antitrust authorities. What is the appropriate roleof customer testimony and when is it most probative? We contendthat customers can provide investigators and judges with informationregarding several relevant issues in an acquisition, includingindustry structure, geographic and product demand substitution,and acceptance of potential market entrants. In contrast, customerswill have considerably less information relevant to the likelihoodof entry, the extent of any merger-specific efficiencies, andthe validity of a failing firm defense. They will almost neverbe qualified to offer legal conclusions, such as the propermarket definition or likely competitive effects of a proposedmerger. We conclude that courts have generally remained consistentin their reliance on customer testimony, including in the ArchCoal and Oracle cases, and that customer testimony, despiteits limitations, should and will continue to be important ateach stage of the merger review process.     

Increasing Participation and Compliance in International Climate Change Agreements

Scientific and economic consensus points to the need for a credible and cost-effective approach to address the threat of global climate change, but the Kyoto Protocol to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change appears incapable of inducing significant participation and compliance. We assess the Protocol and alternative policy architectures, with particular attention to their respective abilities to induce participation and compliance. We find that those approaches that offer cost-effective mitigation are unlikely to induce significant participation and compliance, while those approaches that are likely to enjoy a reasonably high level of implementation by sovereign states are sorely lacking in terms of their anticipated cost effectiveness. The feasible set of policy architectures is thus limited to second-best alternatives.     

Do Campaign Donors Influence Polarization? Evidence from Public Financing in the American States

Does the source of campaign funds influence legislative polarization? We develop competing theoretical expectations regarding the effects of publicly financed elections on legislative voting behavior. To test these expectations, we leverage a natural experiment in the New Jersey Assembly in which public financing was made available to a subset of members. We find that public financing exerts substantively negligible effects on roll‐call voting. We then find a similar result in an examination of state legislatures. We conclude that, counter to the logic of the US Supreme Court, pundits, and reformers, the source of campaign funds exerts minimal influence on polarization.     

Representation,Competing Principals,and Waffling on Bills in US Legislatures

Legislators are often placed in the position of representing the interests of their constituents against the preferences of their own party leaders. We develop a theoretical framework indicating that these cross‐pressured legislators are more likely to initially support legislation and subsequently change their minds than are legislators whose constituents and leaders share similar preferences. Moreover, we expect this pattern to be most pronounced among members of majority parties than minority‐party members. We test our expectations using data on bill cosponsorship and final passage votes from 46 lower state legislative chambers and the US House, finding considerable support for our theory.     

Supervision Intensity and Parole Outcomes: A Competing Risks Approach to Criminal and Technical Parole Violations

Recent scholarship about parole supervision indicates that higher supervision intensity is associated with an increased risk of parole violations. However, parole violations can take many forms—some minor and some serious—and theory suggests that supervision intensity might have differential effects depending upon the type of violation. We use “competing risks” survival models to identify supervision effects on five types of parole violations among 79,082 individuals released from prison in California: absconding, technical violations, drug use, violent offenses, and sexual offenses. We find that supervision effects are strongest for absconding violations. Past sexual offending also triggers significant supervision effects for technical violations, drug use violations, and violent violations. We conclude that parole violation patterns are influenced by parolee behaviors, the amount of attention the state is paying to those behaviors, and official markers of criminal dangerousness that are attached to particular parolees.