The Impact of Performance Measurement on the Selection of Enforcement Targets by Competition Authorities: The Russian Experience in an International Context

References

• Arai, K. (2012). Administrative performance and legitimacy: An elaboration likelihood approach to competition authorities in Japan and the United States. Public Performance & Management Review, 36(1), 54–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, & Australian Energy Regulator (ACCC & AER). (2015). ACCC and AER corporate plan 2015–2016. Retrieved from https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/ACCC%20and%20AER%20Corporate%20Plan%202015-16.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Avdasheva, S., & Shastitko, A. (2011). Russian anti-trust policy: Power of enforcement versus quality of rules. Post-Communist Economies, 23(4), 493–505.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avdasheva, S., Golovanova, S., & Katsoulacos, Y. (in press). Optimal institutional structure of competition authorities under reputation maximization: A model and empirical evidence from the case of Russia. Review of Industrial Organization.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avdasheva, S., Golovanova, S., & Korneeva, D. (2016). Distorting effects of competition authority’s performance measurement: The case of Russia. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 29(3), 288–306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Avdasheva, S., Katsoulacos, Y., Golovanova, S., & Tsytsulina, D. (2016). Economic analysis in competition law enforcement in Russia: Empirical evidence based on data of judicial reviews. In F. Jenny & Y. Katsoulacos (Eds.), Competition law enforcement in the BRICS and in developing countries (pp. 263–287). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. In A. Clark, N. G. Fielding, & R. Witt (Eds.), The economic dimensions of crime (pp. 13–68). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Bork, R. H. (1966). The rule of reason and the per se concept: Price fixing and market division. Yale Law Journal, 75(3), 373–475.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouckaert, G., & Peters, B. G. (2002). Performance measurement and management: The Achilles’ heel in administrative modernization. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(4), 359–362.
   Google Scholar
• Carree, M., Günster, A., & Schinkel, M. P. (2010). European antitrust policy 1957–2004: An analysis of commission decisions, Review of Industrial Organization, 36(2), 97–131.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Competition and Market Authority (CMA). (2016). Annual report and accounts 2015-16. (For the year ended 31 March 2016). Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/539987/cma-annual-report-and-accounts-2015-16-web-accessible-version.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Competition Commission South Africa (CCSA). (2014–2016). Annual performance plans. Retrieved from http://www.compcom.co.za/annual-performance-plans
   Google Scholar
• Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE). (2013). Strategic plan 2013–2016. Retrieved from http://en.cade.gov.br/topics/about-us/attachments/cade-strategic-plan-2013-2016-final-version.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Davies, S. (2010). A review of OFT’s impact estimation methods. Retrieved from http://competitionpolicy.ac.uk/documents/107435/107584/oft1164.pdf
   Google Scholar
• De Vries, M., & Nemec, J. (2013). Public sector reform: An overview of recent literature and research on NPM and alternative paths. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 26(1), 4–16.
   Google Scholar
• Dixit, A. (2002). Incentives and organizations in the public sector: An interpretative review. Journal of Human Resources, 37(4), 696–727.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Douillet, A. C., de Maillard, J., & Zagrodzki, M. (2016). Do statistics reinforce administrative centralization? The contradictory influence of quantified indicators on French national police. In A. Hondeghem, X. Rousseaux, & F. Schoenaers (Eds.), Modernisation of the criminal justice chain and the judicial system (pp. 65–77). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• European Commission (EC). (2016). Strategic plan 2016–2020—Competition. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/strategic-plan-2016-2020-competition_en
   Google Scholar
• Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation (FAS). (2011, December 26). FAS Order No 906 ‘Об утверждении методики оценки результативности деятельности структурных подразделений центрального аппарата ФАС России’ [On the guidelines for performance assessment of the departments of the Central office of FAS]. http://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/71577782/
   Google Scholar
• Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Russian Federation (FAS). (2016, September 6). FAS Order No 1260/16 ‘О системе оценки результативности деятельности территориальных органов ФАС России’ [On the performance assessment of the regional units of the Russian FAS]. http://www.garant.ru/products/ipo/prime/doc/71577782/ http://static.government.ru/media/files/41d4d199c85ee936955c.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Federal Trade Commission (FTC). (2015). Fiscal year 2015 agency financial report. Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/reports/agency-financial-report-fy2015/151116afr_0.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Frye, T., & Shleifer, A. (1997). The invisible hand and the grabbing hand. American Economic Review, 87(2), 354–358.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbons, R. (1998), Incentives in organizations. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 12(4), 115–132.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Girgenson, I., & Numerova, A. (2012). Reform of Russian competition law: It’s a long way from Brussels to Moscow. Journal of European Competition Law & Practice, 3(3), 293–299.
   Google Scholar
• Global Competition Review (2015). Rating enforcement 2015. Retrieved from https://globalcompetitionreview.com/series/rating-enforcement
   Google Scholar
• Gore, O., Viljainen, S., Makkonen, M., & Kuleshov, D. (2012). Russian electricity market reform: Deregulation or re-regulation? Energy Policy, 41, 676–685.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Government of the Russian Federation (Government RF). (2012). Дорожная карта «Развитие конкуренции и совершенствование антимонопольной политики». [Roadmap “Development of competition and improvement of antitrust policy”]. Retrieved from http://government.ru/roadmaps/106/events
   Google Scholar
• Government of the Russian Federation (Government RF). (2014). Перечень показателей оценки эффективности деятельности руководителей федеральных органов исполнительной власти по созданию благоприятных условий ведения предпринимательской деятельности. [List of performance indicators for the heads of federal executive authorities in order to develop favorable business environment]. Retrieved from http://government.ru/media/files/41d4d199c85ee936955c.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, P. (1991). Multitask principal-agent analysis: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 7, 24–52.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hood, C., & Dixon, R. (2015). A government that worked better and cost less? Evaluating three decades of reform and change in UK central Government. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
   Google Scholar
• Ivaldi, M., Jenny, F., & Khimich, A. (2016). Cartel damages to the economy: An assessment for developing countries. In F. Jenny & Y. Katsoulacos (Eds.), Competition law enforcement in the BRICS and in developing countries (pp. 103–134). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Jenny, F. (2016). The institutional design of competition authorities: Debates and trends. In F. Jenny & Y. Katsoulacos (Eds.), Competition law enforcement in the BRICS and in developing countries (pp. 1–58). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Katsoulacos, Y., Avdasheva, S., & Golovanova, S. (2016). Legal standards and the role of economics in competition law enforcement. European Competition Journal, 12(2–3), 277–297.
   Google Scholar
• Kerr, S. (1975). On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 769–783.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovacic, W. E. (2009). Rating the competition agencies: What constitutes good performance. George Mason Law Review, 16(4), 903–926.
   Google Scholar
• Kovacic, W. E., & Hyman, D. A. (2016). Consume or invest: What do/should agency leaders maximize. Washington Law Review, 91(1), 295–324.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kovacic, W. E., & Lopez-Galdos, M. (2016). Lifecycles of competition systems: Explaining variation in the implementation of new regimes. Law & Contemporary Problems, 79(4), 85–122.
   Google Scholar
• Kovacic, W. E., Hollman, H. M., & Grant, P. (2011). How does your competition agency measure up? European Competition Journal, 7(1), 25–45.
   Google Scholar
• Kuleshov, D., Viljainen, S., Annala, S., & Gore, O. (2012). Russian electricity sector reform: Challenges to retail competition. Utilities Policy, 23, 40–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Laffont, J. J., & Tirole, J. (2001). Competition in telecommunications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ordover, J. A., Pittman, R. W., & Clyde, P. (1994). Competition policy for natural monopolies in a developing market economy. Economics of Transition, 2(3), 317–343.
   Google Scholar
• Özdemir, V., & Karbuz, S. (2015). A new era in Russian gas market: The diminishing role of Gazprom. Energy Strategy Reviews, 8, 39–44.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pittman, R. (2004). Abuse-of-dominance provisions of Central and Eastern European competition laws: Have fears of over-enforcement been borne out. World Competition, 27, 245–257.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2004). Public management reform: A comparative analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Pollitt, C., & Bouckaert, G. (2011). Public management reform: A comparative analysis—New public management, governance, and the Neo-Weberian state. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Posner, R. A. (1977). The rule of reason and the economic approach: Reflections on the Sylvania decision. University of Chicago Law Review, 45(1), 1–20.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Priest, G. L., & Klein, B. (1984). The selection of disputes for litigation. Journal of Legal Studies, 13(1), 1–55.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Propper, C., & Wilson, D. (2003). The use and usefulness of performance measures in the public sector. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 19(2), 250–267.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Radaev, V. (2002). Entrepreneurial strategies and the structure of transaction costs in Russian business. Problems of Economic Transition, 44(12), 57–84.
   Google Scholar
• Schinkel, M. P., Tóth, L., & Tuinstra, J. (2015). Discretionary authority and prioritizing in government agencies (Working paper No. 15–058/VII). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam Center for Law & Economics.
   Google Scholar
• Shastitko, A. (2016). Empirical assessment of the role of economic analysis in the Russian antitrust: Why is economic analysis used? European Journal of Law and Economics. doi:10.1007/s10657-016-9537-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shi, L. (2009). The limit of oversight in policing: Evidence from the 2001 Cincinnati riot. Journal of Public Economics, 93(1–2), 99–113.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shleifer, A. (1997). Government in transition. European Economic Review, 41(3), 385–410.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, P. (1995). On the unintended consequences of publishing performance data in the public sector, International Journal of Public Administration, 18(2), 277–310.
   Google Scholar
• United States Department of Justice. (2014). Fiscal years 2014–2018 strategic plan. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/jmd/legacy/2014/02/28/doj-fy-2014–2018-strategic-plan.pdf#s8
   Google Scholar
• United States Department of Justice. (2016). FY 2015 annual performance report and FY 2017 annual performance plan. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/doj/file/822781/download
   Google Scholar
• Van Thiel, S., & Leeuw, F. L. (2002). The performance paradox in the public sector. Public Performance & Management Review, 25(3), 267–281.
   Google Scholar
• Velikonja, U. (2016). Reporting agency performance: Behind the SEC’s enforcement statistics. Cornell Law Review, 101(4), 901–980.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Verheijen, T., & Dobrolyubova, Y. (2007), Performance management in the Baltic States and Russia: Success against the odds? International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73(2), 205–215.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vickers, J. (2008) Abuse of market power. In P. Buccirossi (ed.) Handbook of antitrust economics (pp. 415–32). Cambridge, MA, USA, MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weibel, A., Rost, K., & Osterloh, M. (2010). Pay for performance in the public sector—Benefits and (hidden) costs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 387–412.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar