IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/econom/v71y2004i283p333-348.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Self-reporting in Optimal Law Enforcement when there are Criminal Teams

Author

Listed:
  • Eberhard Feess
  • Markus Walzl

Abstract

We extend the analysis of self-reporting schemes to criminal teams. When the violators behave non-cooperatively, maximum deterrence can be reached at virtually no cost by designing a prisoners' dilemma. One drawback of such a scheme is that it might induce cooperative behaviour in the self-reporting stage. If the cooperation rate is increasing the benefits from cooperation, it is optimal to impose less than the maximum fine if both individuals self-report. The same result occurs for imperfect self-reporting technologies where the conviction of one agent does not necessarily lead to a conviction of his accomplice. Copyright (c) The London School of Economics and Political Science 2004.

Suggested Citation

  • Eberhard Feess & Markus Walzl, 2004. "Self-reporting in Optimal Law Enforcement when there are Criminal Teams," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 71(283), pages 333-348, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:econom:v:71:y:2004:i:283:p:333-348
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Claudia M. Landeo & Kathryn E. Spier, 2020. "Optimal Law Enforcement with Ordered Leniency," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 63(1), pages 71-111.
    2. Bochet, Olivier, 2007. "Switching from complete to incomplete information," Journal of Mathematical Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 735-748, August.
    3. Tim Friehe & Thomas J. Miceli, 2017. "On Punishment Severity and Crime Rates," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 464-485.
    4. Muehlheusser, Gerd & Roider, Andreas, 2004. "Black Sheep and Walls of Silence," IZA Discussion Papers 1171, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Graf Lambsdorff, Johann, 2010. "Deterrence and constrained enforcement: Alternative regimes to deal with bribery," Passauer Diskussionspapiere, Volkswirtschaftliche Reihe V-60-10, University of Passau, Faculty of Business and Economics.
    6. Landeo, Claudia M. & Spier, Kathryn E., 2015. "Incentive contracts for teams: Experimental evidence," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 496-511.
    7. Isogai, Shigeki & Shen, Chaohai, 2023. "Multiproduct firm’s reputation and leniency program in multimarket collusion," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    8. Marvao, Catarina, 2014. "Heterogeneous Penalties and Private Information," SITE Working Paper Series 29, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics.
    9. Buccirossi, Paolo & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2006. "Leniency policies and illegal transactions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(6-7), pages 1281-1297, August.
    10. Catarina Marvão & Giancarlo Spagnolo, 2018. "Cartels and leniency: Taking stock of what we learnt," Chapters, in: Luis C. Corchón & Marco A. Marini (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory and Industrial Organization, Volume II, chapter 4, pages 57-90, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Johann Graf Lambsdorff, 2011. "Economic Approaches to Anticorruption," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 9(02), pages 25-30, July.
    12. Jochem, Annabelle & Parrotta, Pierpaolo & Valletta, Giacomo, 2020. "The impact of the 2002 reform of the EU leniency program on cartel outcomes," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    13. Robert Innes, 2017. "Lie aversion and self-reporting in optimal law enforcement," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 52(2), pages 107-131, October.
    14. Eberhard Feess & Markus Walzl, 2005. "Optimal Self-Reporting Schemes with Multiple Stages and Option Values," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 12(3), pages 265-279, May.
    15. Johann Graf Lambsdorff, 2011. "Economic Approaches to Anticorruption," ifo DICE Report, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 9(2), pages 25-30, 07.
    16. Emilie Dargaud & Armel Jacques, 2020. "Slowdown antitrust investigations by decentralization," Working Papers halshs-02613352, HAL.
    17. Landeo, Claudia & Spier, Kathryn, 2018. "Ordered Leniency: An Experimental Study of Law Enforcement with Self-Reporting," Working Papers 2018-13, University of Alberta, Department of Economics.
    18. Feess, E. & Walzl, M., 2008. "Quid-pro-quo or winner-takes-it-all? : an analysis of corporate leniency programs and lessons to learn for EU and US policies," Research Memorandum 057, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    19. Panayiotis Agisilaou, 2013. "Collusion in Industrial Economics and Optimally Designed Leniency Programmes - A Survey," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2013-03, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    20. Evgenia MOTCHENKOVA & Daniel LELIEFELD, 2010. "Adverse Effects Of Corporate Leniency Programs In View Of Industry Asymmetry," Journal of Applied Economic Sciences, Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Financial Management and Accounting Craiova, vol. 5(2(12)/Sum), pages 114-128.
    21. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:11:y:2006:i:2:p:1-7 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. repec:ces:ifodic:v:9:y:2011:i:2:p:16132634 is not listed on IDEAS
    23. Marvão, Catarina, 2014. "Heterogeneous Penalties and Private Information," Konkurrensverket Working Paper Series in Law and Economics 2014:1, Konkurrensverket (Swedish Competition Authority).
    24. Palm, F.C. & Gengenbach, C. & Urbain, J.R.Y.J., 2004. "Panel unit root tests in the presence of cross-1 sectional dependencies: comparison and implications for medelling," Research Memorandum 039, Maastricht University, Maastricht Research School of Economics of Technology and Organization (METEOR).
    25. Tim Friehe & Thomas J. Miceli, 2018. "On the role of the exclusionary rule for optimal law enforcement effort," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 20(5), pages 757-767, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:econom:v:71:y:2004:i:283:p:333-348. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley-Blackwell Digital Licensing or Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.