LCF25 - Presentation of the Young Talent Competition Award

Value of the Information & Strength of the Argument

The video provides valuable insights into ongoing research in competition policy. The first presentation offers a novel empirical analysis of Amazon’s self-preferencing, with preliminary results that challenge the effectiveness of the EU’s behavioral remedies. The argumentation is clear, though the presenter acknowledges the preliminary nature and the need for further work. The second presentation is more rigorous, with a well-defined research question, a unique dataset, and a solid econometric methodology (difference-in-differences). The authors present robustness checks and placebo tests, strengthening their causal claims. Overall, the arguments are well-structured and supported by data, though the first presentation is less developed.

Scientific Rigor, Source Quality, Title Accuracy

The scientific rigor is generally high. The presenters reference specific antitrust cases (EU vs. Amazon, EU Damages Directive) and use official sources. The second presentation explicitly mentions using databases from the University of Trento and the ICC compendium. However, the video does not provide direct citations or links to sources, and the research is preliminary. The title accurately reflects the content, as it is a presentation of the award and the finalists’ research. The adequacy is good, though the title could be more specific about the research topics.

The title accurately reflects the content: the video is a presentation of the Young Talent Competition Award at a conference, featuring finalists' research.

7/10

The video presents two research proposals by early-career economists, with clear methodology and preliminary results. The content is credible but limited by the preliminary nature of the research and the lack of detailed peer review.

Markers derived by PSI from the transcript: the creator did not define chapters.

• 00:00Introduction to the Young Talent Competition Award by Bill Kovacic.
• 03:00Tomaso Valletti introduces the first finalist, Min Lynn, and her research on Amazon self-preferencing.
• 05:00Min Lynn presents her research proposal on regulating self-preferencing, focusing on Amazon's buy box.
• 10:00Min Lynn discusses the EU and India regulatory approaches and preliminary results showing price increases.
• 15:00Pinar Akman introduces the second finalists, Elona Dan and Jean Muton, and their research on the EU Damages Directive.
• 20:00Elona Dan presents their database of 184 abuse of dominance cases and the empirical strategy.
• 25:00Jean Muton explains the difference-in-differences methodology and presents results showing a 40.8 percentage point increase in success probability.
• 30:00Discussion of robustness checks and placebo tests.
• 35:00Closing remarks and award announcement (winner not revealed).

• EU vs. Amazon (AT.40462) — Mentioned as the European Commission's antitrust case against Amazon regarding the buy box.
• EU Damages Directive (2014/104/EU) — Mentioned as the directive that aimed to increase private enforcement of competition law.
• University of Trento database on damages actions — Mentioned as a source for the database of damages cases.

• European Commission decision on Amazon (AT.40462) — Supports the discussion of the EU's case against Amazon.
• OECD report on self-preferencing — Provides background on self-preferencing issues in digital markets.

• Critique of the EU Damages Directive effectiveness — Some scholars argue that the directive has not significantly increased private enforcement, contrasting with the findings presented.