1. The Economics of European Integration Chapter 6
Market Size and Scale Effects

2. Market Size Matters
European leaders always viewed integration as compensating small size of European nations:
implicit assumption: market size good for economic performance.
Facts: integration associated with mergers, acquisitions, etc:
in Europe and more generally, ‘globalisation’.

3. Facts M&A activity is high in EU.
Much M&A is mergers within member state:
about 55 per cent ‘domestic’
remaining 45 per cent split between:
one is non-EU firm (24 per cent),
one firm was located in another EU nation (15 per cent)
counterparty’s nationality was not identified (6 per cent).

4. Facts Distribution of M&A quite varied:
Big-four: share M&As much lower than share of the EU GDP
I, F, D 36 per cent of the M&As, 59 per cent GDP (except UK)
small members have disproportionate share of M&A.

5. Facts Why M&A mostly within EU? Why UK’s share so large?
non harmonised takeovers rules:
some members have very restrictive takeover practices, makes M&As very difficult
others, UK, very liberal rules.
Lack of harmonisation means restructuring effects have been felt very differently in various member states.

6. Economic Logic Verbally
Liberalisation 
De-fragmentation 
Pro-competitive effect 
Industrial restructuring (M&A, etc.)
RESULT: fewer, bigger, more efficient firms facing more effective competition from each other .

7. Economic Logic: Background
Monopoly case

8. Economic Logic: Background
Duopoly case, example of non-equilibrium

9. Economic Logic: Background
Duopoly and oligopoly case, equilibrium outcome

10. BE-COMP Diagram

11. Equilibrium in BE-COMP Diagram

12. No-trade-to-Free-trade Integration

13. Economic Logic
Integration: no-trade-to-free-trade: BE curve shifts out (to point 1).
Defragmentation:
PRE typical firm has 100 per cent sales at home, 0 per cent abroad; POST: 50-50
can’t see in diagram.

14. Economic Logic Pro-competitive effect:
equilibrium moves from E’ to A: firms losing money (below BE)
pro-competitive effect = markup falls
short-run price impact p’ to pA.
Industrial Restructuring:
A to E”
number of firms, 2n’ to n”
firms enlarge market shares and output
more efficient firms, AC falls from p’ to p”

15. Economic Logic mark-up rises profitability is restored. Result:
bigger, fewer, more efficient firms facing more effective competition.
Welfare: gain is increase in consumer surplus p,`p``,E`,`E`.

16. State Aid (Subsidies) Two immediate questions:
‘as the number of firms falls, isn’t there a tendency for the remaining firms to collude in order to keep prices high?’
‘since industrial restructuring can be politically painful, isn’t there a danger that governments will try to keep money-losing firms in business via subsidies and other policies?’.
The answer to both questions is ‘yes’.
Turn first to the economics of subsidies and EU’s policy.

17. Economics: Restructuring Prevention
Consider subsidies that prevent restructuring.
Specifically, each governments make annual payments to all firms exactly equal to their losses:
i.e. all 2n’ firms in Figure 6-9 analysis break even, but not new firms
economy stays at point A.
This changes who pays for the inefficiently small firms from consumers to taxpayers.

18. Restructuring Prevention: Size of Subsidy
Pre-integration: fixed costs = operating profit = area “a+b”.
Post-integration: operating profit = b+c.
ERGO: Breakeven subsidy = a-c.
Note: b+c+a-c=a+b.

19. Restructuring Prevention: Welfare Impact
Change producer surplus = zero (profit is zero pre and post).
Change consumer surplus = a+d.
Subsidy cost = a-c.
Total impact = d+c.

20. Only some Subsidise: Unfair Competition
If foreign pays ‘break even’ subsidies to its firms.
All restructuring forced on home.
2n’ moves to n”, but all the exit is by home firms.
Unfair.
Undermines political support for liberalisation.

21. EU policies on ‘State Aids’
1957 Treaty of Rome bans state aid that provides firms with an unfair advantage and thus distorts competition.
EU founders considered this so important that they empowered the Commission with enforcement.

22. Anti-Competitive Behaviour
Collusion is a real concern in Europe:
dangers of collusion rise as the number of firms falls.
Collusion in the BE-COMP diagram:
COMP curve is for ‘normal’, non-collusive competition
firms do not coordinate prices or sales.

23. Anti-Competitive Behaviour
Other extreme is ‘perfect collusion’:
firms coordinate prices and sales perfectly
max profit from market is monopoly price and sales
perfect collusion is where firms charge monopoly price and split the sales among themselves.

24. Economic Effects
Collusion will not in the end raise firm’s profits to above-normal levels:
2n’ is too high for all firms to break even
industrial consolidation proceeds as usual, but only to nB. Point B zero profits earned by all.
Prices higher, pB> p”, smaller firms, higher average cost.

25. Economic Effects The welfare cost of collusion (versus no collusion):
four-sided area marked by pB, p”, E” and B.
price
Demand curve
Mark-up
BEFT
pmono
mmono
Perfect
collusion A B B pB E”
Partial
collusion E” p”
COMP
n=1 n” nB
Number of firms
Total
sales CB

26. EU Competition Policy
To prevent anti-competitive behavior, EU policy focuses on two main axes.
Antitrust and cartels. The Commission tries:
to eliminate behaviours that restrict competition (e.g. price-fixing arrangements and cartels)
to eliminate abusive behaviour by firms that have a dominant position.

27. EU Competition Policy Merger control. The Commission seeks:
to block mergers that would create firms that would dominate the market.