Page 25 - Azerbaijan State University of Economics

THE JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC SCIENCES: THEORY AND PRACTICE, V.71, # 1, 2014, pp. 4-25

are applied in each particular case through the support of public officials of countries with

emerging market economy, they would be utilized better and have more precise and positive

outlines.

References

[1] The selected papers of David J.Teece volume two. Strategy, technology and public policy.

Economists of the Twentieth Century.USA. 1998. 837 p.
[2] Brusick P (2008). Privatization, natural monopolies and sector regulators: an

international perspective. Presentation prepared for the Conference on Competition Policy
and Privatization. Cairo. 28 January 2008

[3] Neven D (2007). Competition economics in Europe. Introduction. The 2007 Handbook of
Competition Economics. Available at

http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/competition/economist/intro_competition_economics.pdf.
[4] Werden GJ (2002). The 1982 Merger Guidelines and the Ascent of the Hypothetical

Monopolist Paradigm.
[5] OEGD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development). 1993. The Glossary of

Industrial Organization Economics and Competition Law. Paris.
- 1994. Merger Cases in the Real World: A Study of Merger Control Procedures. Paris.

[6] Gellhorn, Ernest, and William E. Kovacic. 1994. Antitrust Law and Economics in a Nutshell,
St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Company.

[7] Ordover, Janusz, and Robert Willig. 1993. "Economics and the 1992 Merger
Guidelines: A Brief Survey." Review of Industrial Organization 8 (2): 139-50

[8] Anderson, R.J., S. D Khosla, and J. Monteiro. 1996. "Market Definition in Abuse of
Dominant Position Cases Act." In OECD Committee on Competition Law and Policy.

Proceedings of a Roundtable on Abuse of Dominant Position. OECD 89-I 12. Paris:
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

[9] Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato. 1993. Annual Report (in Italian). Rome.
[10] Brennan, Timothy. 1987. "Why Regulated Firms Should Be Kept Out of Unregulated

Markets: Understanding the Divestiture in U.S. v. AT&T." Antitrust Bulletin 32 (3): 741-93

25