¹ Eisner, M. A. 1991. Antitrust and the Triumph of Economics: Institutions, Expertise and Policy Change. North Carolina Press.Google Scholar

² At 1.

³ At 161.

⁴ At 5.

⁵ See Jones, A. and Sufrin, B.. 2004. EC Competition Law: Text, Cases and Materials, 2nd edn.Oxford University Press, 182–6.Google Scholar

⁶ Black at page 33 notes that EC and US antitrust favours consumer welfare while economists favour social welfare.

⁷ Peritz, R. J. R. 2000. Competition Policy in America: History, Rhetoric, Law. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

⁸ At 33.

⁹ Audretsch, D. B., Baumol, W. J. and Burke, A. E. 2001. Competition policy in dynamic markets. International Journal of Industrial Organization 19: 613–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Maher, I. 2004. Regulating competition. In Regulating Law, Parker, C., Braithwaite, J., Scott, C. and Lacey, N., eds. Oxford University Press, 197.Google Scholar

¹¹ See e.g. Commission Notice on Market Definition [1997] Official Journal C 372/5; [1998] 4 Common Market Law Reports 177.

¹² Members of the Australian Competition Tribunal can include an economist, see section 31(2) Trade Practices Act 1974. An economist may sit as a lay member of the High Court in New Zealand when it is considering competition law matters, see section 77 Commerce Act 1986.

¹³ See e.g., section 4 of the Irish Competition Act 1996.

¹⁴ The other being that an effective competitor may over time achieve monopoly.

¹⁵ At 6.

¹⁶ At 26.

¹⁷ “[a] form of coordination between undertakings which, without having reached the stage where an agreement properly so-called has been concluded, knowingly substitutes practical cooperation between them for the risks of competition” the European Court of Justice in cases 48/69 etc ICI v. Commission [1972] European Court Reports 619, [1972] Common Market Law Reports 557, paragraph 64.

¹⁸ At 185.

¹⁹ Case T-342/99 Airtours plc c. Commission [2002] European Court Reports II-2585, [2002] 5 Common Market Law Reports 176.