카르텔 손해액의 산정 문제: 계량경제학 방법론 논쟁의 시사점
A Problem of Quantifying Cartel Damages: Some Lessons from Debates of Methodology of Econometrics
0
조회
0
다운로드
1
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This article considers the debates of methodology of econometrics between Tinbergen and Keynes, drawing possible lessons for cartel damages in the context of Korean antitrust law. In some cartel damage cases the Korean Supreme Court has ruled that the plaintiff must quantify the amount of damages with econometric analysis based on the but-for price test. Most economists as well as most lawyers seem agree with the Court’s ruling. Most economists have believed that the matter concerning cartel damages is only about technical methods rather than methodology. Indeed it seems that modern econometrics does not take the problem of methodology seriously. However, assumptions which multiple regression depends on are extremely restrictive and unreasonable, there still exists a fundamental question whether the but-for price really can be known from multiple regression. This article concludes that there is no grantee that we may obtain the but-for price with econometrics, quantifying cartel damages with multiple regression is just a kind of belief or myth rather than sound science.
Abstract
This article considers the debates of methodology of econometrics between Tinbergen and Keynes, drawing possible lessons for cartel damages in the context of Korean antitrust law. In some cartel damage cases the Korean Supreme Court has ruled that the plaintiff must quantify the amount of damages with econometric analysis based on the but-for price test. Most economists as well as most lawyers seem agree with the Court’s ruling. Most economists have believed that the matter concerning cartel damages is only about technical methods rather than methodology. Indeed it seems that modern econometrics does not take the problem of methodology seriously. However, assumptions which multiple regression depends on are extremely restrictive and unreasonable, there still exists a fundamental question whether the but-for price really can be known from multiple regression. This article concludes that there is no grantee that we may obtain the but-for price with econometrics, quantifying cartel damages with multiple regression is just a kind of belief or myth rather than sound science.
참고문헌 (49)
- 류근관, "담합으로 인한 손해액 산정에 있어서 경제 분석 상의 주요 쟁점", 응용경제, 12(2), pp.87~112 (2010), 한국응용경제학회
- 신도욱, "入札談合으로 인한 損害賠償請求 訴訟에 있어서의 爭點 - 서울고등법원 2009. 12. 30. 선고 2007나25157 판결 및 서울중앙지방법원 2007. 1. 23. 선고 2001가합10682 판결에서 판시한 損害額 算定 方法 및 經濟學的 論證에 대한 規範的 統制를 中心으로 -", 법조, 59(9)통권 : 648, pp.230~287 (2010), 법조협회
- 이선희, "독점규제법 위반으로 인한 손해배상소송에서 손해액 산정과 손해액 인정제도", 경쟁법연구, 26, pp.203~250 (2012), 한국경쟁법학회
- 윤성운, "공정거래법 위반으로 인한 손해액의 산정방법과 주요 쟁점", 경쟁법연구, 25, pp.91~138 (2012), 한국경쟁법학회
- 전원열, "계량경제학에 의한 민사 손해배상액 산정과 법원의 통제", 법조, 64(1), pp.175~238 (2015), 법조협회
- 주진열, "카르텔 손해액 추정을 위한 계량경제분석의 규범적 통제", 법학연구, 22(1), pp.157~202 (2012), 법학연구원
- 홍대식, "가격담합으로 인한 공정거래 손해배상소송에서의 손해액 산정: 실증경제분석 증거에 대한 법원의 수용 사례 및 기준을 중심으로", 비교사법, 19(2), pp.703~746 (2012), 한국비교사법학회
- American Bar Association, "Proving Antitrust Damage: Legal and Economic Issues" (2010), American Bar Association
- American Bar Association, "Econometrics: Legal, Practical and Technical Issues" (2005), American Bar Association
- Angrist, Joshua D., "Mostly Harmless Econometrics" (2009), Princeton University Press
- Bajari, Patrick, "Deciding Between Competition and Collusion", The Review of Economics and Statistics, 85 (2003)
- Basso, Leonardo J., "Measuring the True Harm from Price-Fixing to Both Direct and Indirect Purchasers", The Journal of Industrial Economics, 58(4) (2010)
- Blair, Roger D., "The Implications of Daubert for Economic Evidence in Antitrust Cases", Wash. & Lee L. Rev, 57, pp.801~ (2000)
- Boland, Lawrence A., "The Foundations of Economic Method: A Popperian Perspective" (2003), Routledge
- Boumans, Maurice, "Economic Methodology: Understanding Economics as Science" (2010), Palgrave Mcmillian
- Blaug, Mark, "The Methodology of Economics: Or, How Economists Explain" (1992), Cambridge University Press
- Bruce, Johnsen D., "Daubert, the Scientific Method, and Economic Expert Testimony", Kan. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y, 9, pp.149~ (2000)
- Cameron, A. Colin, "Microeconometrics: Methods and Application" (2005), Cambridge University Press
- Colella, Francis J., "Neutrality and Advocacy: A Challenge for Forensic Economics", J. Legal Econ, 8, pp.71~ (1999)
- Davis, Peter, "Quantitative Techniques for Competition and Antitrust Analysis" (2010), Princeton University Press
- Directorate-General for Competition European Commission, "Quantifying Antitrust Damages: Towards Non-Binding Guidance for Courts" (2010), Dictus Publishing
- Fortenberry, Joseph E., "Antitrust Litigation and the Court-Appointed Economic Expert", Antitrust L. & Econ. Rev, 12, pp.41~ (1980)
- Frees, Edward W., "Regression Modeling with Actuarial and Financial Applications" (2009), Cambridge University Press
- Gavil, Andrew I., "After Daubert: Discerning the Increasingly Fine Line between the Admissibility and Sufficiency of Expert Testimony in Antitrust Litigation", Antitrust L. J, 65, pp.663~ (1997)
- Gavil, Andrew I., "Defining Reliable Forensic Economics in the Post-Daubert", Kumho Tire Era: Case Studies from Antitrust, 2000, pp.57, 831~
- "Keynes on econometric method. A reassessment of his debate with Tinbergen and other econometricians, 1938-1943" (2004)[URL]
- Greene, William H., "Econometric Analysis" (2017), Pearson
- Hovenkamp, Herbert, "The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution" (2006), Harvard University Press
- Hovenkamp, Herbert, "Federal Antitrust Policy: The Law of Competition And Its Practice" (2011), West Publishing Co
- Kaye, D. H., "Adversarial Econometrics in United States Tobacco Co. v. Conwood Co", Jurimetrics J, 43, pp.3~ (2003)
- Keuzenkamp, Hugo A., "Probability, Econometrics and Truth: The Methodology of Econometrics" (2000), Cambridge University Press
- Keynes, John M., "Professor Tinbergen’s Method", Economic Journal, 49 (1939)
- Keynes, John M., "Comment", The Economic Journal (1940)
- Klein, Lawrence, "The Life of J. M. Keynes", Journal of Political Economy, 59 (1951)
- Magnus, "Methodology and Tacit Knowledge: Two Experiments in Econometrics" (1999), Wiley
- Marshall, "The Economics of Collusion: Cartels and Bidding Rings" (2012), The MIT Press
- McCloskey, Donald N., "The Loss Function Has Been Mislaid: The Rhetoric of Significant Tests", American Economic Review, 75 (1985)
- Molyneaux, Michele, "Quality Control of Economic Expert Testimony: The Fundamental Methods of Proving Antitrust Damages", Ariz. St. L.J, 35, pp.1049~ (2003)
- Morgan, Mary S., "The History of Econometric Ideas: Historical Perspectives on Modern Economics" (1990), Cambridge University Press
- Nelson, Robert H., "Economics As Religion: A Reply to the Commenters", Case W. Res. L. Rev, 56, pp.3~ (2006)
- Peter, Davis, "Quantitative Technique for Competition and Antitrust Analysis" (2010), Princeton University Press
- "The Trouble With Macroeconomics (January 5, 2016 as the Commons Memorial Lecture of the Omicron Delta Epsilon Society)"[URL]
- Rubinfeld, Daniel L., "Federal Judicial Center, Reference on Scientific Evidence" (2000), West Group
- Solow, John L, "Doing Good Economics in the Courtroom: Thoughts on Daubert and Expert Testimony in Antitrust", J. Corp. L, 31, pp.489~ (2006)
- Syll, Lars, "Uncovering where econometric skeletons are buried", World Economics Association Newsletter, 6(6) (2016)
- Tinbergen, Jan, "Statistical Testing of Business-Cycle Theories, vol. I: A Method and Its Application in Investment Activity" (1939), League of Nations
- Tinbergen, Jan, "On a Method of Statistical Business Research. A Reply", Economic Journal (1940)
- "The Keynes-Tinbergen Debate on the Relevance of Estimating Econometric Models for Policy Analysis"[URL]
- Zohn, Molly L., "How Antitrust Damages Measure up with Respect to the Daubert Factors", Geo. Mason L. Rev, 13, pp.697~ (2005)