Winner of the 2006 Consultancy Prize
Copenhagen Economics has won the prize for best consultancy 2006 for the project ”The legal profession. Competition and Liberalisation on behalf of the Danish Law and Bar Society. The prize is awarded by the Danish Management Council (Dansk Management Råd). These are the comments by the awarding committee: "The project is unique because the client is “new” in a consultancy sense. It has been carried out in a business that itself delivers advice to clients and which in its nature is critical. This has meant that the client has subjected the result to an extremely thorough quality control of contents during the whole process prior to acceptance. The project has contributed in a decisive manner to qualifying the debate on the future of the legal profession among those with vested interests – including the decision makers. The project has had a very visible effect – the client has reached his target of achieving a solid professional basis for the analysis to which other interested parties had to consider both from a critical and constructive point of view. Professionally, the project receives top marks. It demonstrates how well implemented economic analyses can further a reasoned debate and achieve recognition – also internationally. The project has combined notable professional strengths and targeted communication." Further information: Henrik Ballebye Olesen Link to press release (in Danish) on the Danish Management Council’s home page Read the report in Danish
Yes, market opening does work
Today, the European Commission has made public a Copenhagen Economics study on the overall economic impact due to market opening to promote competition in network industries. The study shows that market opening of network industries has generated economic growth and created new jobs. “Overall, we confirm the existence of economic gains. We estimate that market opening in network industries increases overall EU15 welfare by 1.9 percent or €98 billion and gives rise to additional employment corresponding to about 500.000 jobs until the turn of the century”, says Dr. Claus Kastberg Nielsen, CEO of Copenhagen Economics. The study shows that the member states that have been quick to implement the EU directives on telecommunications and electricity have gained more than the member states that have implemented the directives more slowly. This is due to the overall gains being primarily associated with market opening in telecommunication and electricity above all becausee these two sectors account for two thirds of all output from the network industries covered by the study. “We find that the Nordic member states (Sweden, Denmark and Finland) have been the most aggressive in opening their markets for telecommunications and electricity, and they are also the ones reaping the highest welfare and employment gains. Other member states such as Greece have hardly gained anything in terms of welfare and employment, which is due to slow Greek market opening in telecommunications and electricity”, says Dr. Kastberg Nielsen. The study covers all EU15 member states over the last 10-15 years. The network industries included in the study are: Electricity, telecommunication, rail passenger transport, rail freight transport, urban transport, air transport, natural gas, and postal services. Further information: Dr Claus Kastberg Nielsen Market opening Market opening sectoral analyses Summary of country specific gains Link to the Commission homepage
Don’t toss a coin over cartel damages

This is the warning Copenhagen Economics issues to all parties in the damage claim cases following the Swedish asphalt cartel in the leading Swedish business paper “Dagens Industri”. In Denmark, a cartel damages case was recently settled and we are concerned that the lack of economic evidence in the Danish case may also surface in the Swedish damage claims proceedings. Without economic support the parties expose themselves to unnecessary large risks. To assess the damage, the actual price paid should be compared with the price that would have prevailed in the absence of the cartel. To estimate this price is no trivial matter. But far from impossible. In the Danish case, one claim was that the price before the cartel was the relevant comparison price. Another, that the price after the cartel was the correct non-collusive price. Economic theory cannot decide which of these claims are true. Thus the court was left to make an arbitrary decision. There are however several economic techniques that could have been used to assess the claims. Using them could have changed the outcome. In order not to face the same coin-tossing scenario in the Swedish proceedings, we advise all parties in the damage claims cases to do their homework thoroughly, for the sake of both the consumers and the shareholders. Further information: Dr Claus Kastberg Nielsen