What is the influence of the rapporteurs on the decisions of the CADE Court? an econometric approach for mergers between 2014-2023

Abstract

This article evaluates, using an econometric approach, whether there is any bias in the decisions of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) on ordinary mergers derived from the characteristics of the reporting member, such as gender and academic background. To this end, the randomness of the draw in the distribution of rapporteurships is explored. The database contains, between 2014 and 2023, an exhaustive list of the 114 cases known to the GS and judged by the 13 rapporteurs who began their mandate in 2014, the year in which the Electronic Information System (SEI) came into force. During this period, 70% of the Court's rapporteurs were men, a percentage similar to that of law graduates. The General Superintendence (SG) approved 47% of the CAs
without restrictions, of which the Court upheld the decision 88% of the time. When the recommendation was to challenge (53%), the Court approved 81% of the cases with restrictions. The results of the econometric analysis, already considering the SG's recommendation, show that decisions can vary depending on the rapporteur's characteristics, in particular: women or economists are less likely to approve cases without restrictions. These results should be evaluated with caution given the small sample size.