Myths and Myth‐Making in the European Union: The Institutionalization and Interpretation of EU Competition Policy*

Abstract

EU competition policy has become so strongly institutionalized that it is easy to overlook its precarious status in earlier decades. This article argues, first, that the Commission responded to the imperative arising from the extraordinary powers created by the treaty and the novelty of competition policy in post-war Europe by developing a series of myths to provide justification for its prerogatives. Second, these myths have played a key role in securing acceptance of EU policy, though other factors have also been important. Third, the official mythology has been supplemented by an interpretation which has become dominant in the law and political science literatures; namely, that EU competition policy has ordoliberal origins. This article challenges this view.

Agri‐Food Export Competitiveness in European Union Countries

“…Global policy changes have strengthened the conception of global competitiveness (for example, Hay, ). The internal EU policies and the EU enlargements have aimed to establish institutional settings (Daugbjerg and Swinbank, ), thereby reinforcing global competitiveness (Howarth, ; Akman and Kassim, ). This article rectifies the missing empirical research and policy competitiveness issues in the theoretical and empirical literature in the case of the agri‐food export competitiveness of the enlarged EU‐27 countries in global markets.…”

“…At the same time, the objective of the EU internal policies has been to become one of the most competitive economies in the world (Howarth, ); however, this objective has not been achieved. Akman and Kassim () have argued that one of the reasons for failure can be found in the unrealistically set objectives of the EU's competition policy. The impact of the eastward EU enlargement on the region's competitiveness and on global markets has been analyzed by a few studies that provide evidence regarding various aspects of changes in agri‐food trade and competitiveness patterns, trade specialization and trade dynamics between post‐communist central and eastern European countries (CEECs) and the EU (Bojnec, ; Fertő and Hubbard, ; Török and Jámbor, ).…”

The European Commission's Fight against Cartels (1962–2014): A Retrospective and Forensic Analysis

“…He states that the 1951 and 1957 ‘treaties seemed to suggest that the nation state was becoming redundant as an authoritative source of governance’. The question from this approach is then to analyze how the process of integration expands and deepens by its own functionality compared to the old nation states (Akman and Kassim, ).…”

The Centralization of EU Competition Policy: Historical Institutionalist Dynamics from Cartel Monitoring to Merger Control (1956–91)

“…Several studies having a wide scope exist, but they do not deal with the decision‐making process of both Regulations 17/62 and 4064/89, and consequently do not try explicitly to weave a link between both pieces of legislation. The most convincing studies deal with the role of ideas (Akman and Kassim, ) or with the relationships between non‐state and supranational actors (Büthe, ; McGowan, ). The seminal and much‐discussed book by David Gerber, for instance, devoted only a few pages to both negotiations (Gerber, , pp.…”