IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bpj/bejeap/v19y2019i1p20n10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Announced or Surprise Inspections and Oligopoly Competition

Author

Listed:
  • Dechenaux Emmanuel

    (Department of Economics, Kent State University, Kent, OH 44242, USA)

  • Samuel Andrew

    (Department of Economics, Loyola University Maryland, 4501 N. Charles Street, Baltimore, MD 21210, USA)

Abstract

To enforce compliance, regulators often choose between announced or unannounced (surprise) inspections. We analyze the impact of these inspection regimes on firms’ compliance choices in a multiple stage oligopoly game of quantity competition with endogenous compliance, monitoring and avoidance. In equilibrium, whether unannounced inspections achieve a higher level of compliance than announced inspections depends on the number of firms, demand and the cost of compliance. Furthermore, the impact on compliance of increasing the fine, the supervisor’s wage or the probability of inspections also depends on market size and structure and may be non-monotonic. Finally we provide conditions under which a welfare maximizing regulator will prefer an unannounced to an announced regime. Thus, our results suggest that when choosing the appropriate inspection regime, regulators should account for market characteristics, especially if compliance maximization is the objective.

Suggested Citation

  • Dechenaux Emmanuel & Samuel Andrew, 2019. "Announced or Surprise Inspections and Oligopoly Competition," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 19(1), pages 1-20, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:bpj:bejeap:v:19:y:2019:i:1:p:20:n:10
    DOI: 10.1515/bejeap-2018-0141
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1515/bejeap-2018-0141
    Download Restriction: For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1515/bejeap-2018-0141?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary S. Becker, 1974. "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," NBER Chapters, in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 1-54, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Jakob Svensson, 2005. "Eight Questions about Corruption," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 19(3), pages 19-42, Summer.
    3. A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), 2007. "Handbook of Law and Economics," Handbook of Law and Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 2, number 2.
    4. Ginger Zhe Jin & Jungmin Lee, 2014. "Inspection technology, detection, and compliance: evidence from Florida restaurant inspections," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 45(4), pages 885-917, December.
    5. Polinsky, A. Mitchell & Shavell, Steven, 2007. "The Theory of Public Enforcement of Law," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 6, pages 403-454, Elsevier.
    6. Dai, Zhixin & Hogarth, Robin M. & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2015. "Ambiguity on audits and cooperation in a public goods game," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 146-162.
    7. Steven Berry & Panle Jia, 2010. "Tracing the Woes: An Empirical Analysis of the Airline Industry," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 1-43, August.
    8. Andrei Shleifer, 2004. "Does Competition Destroy Ethical Behavior?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 94(2), pages 414-418, May.
    9. Timothy N. Cason & Lata Gangadharan, 2006. "An Experimental Study of Compliance and Leverage in Auditing and Regulatory Enforcement," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 44(2), pages 352-366, April.
    10. Lear, Kelly Kristen & Maxwell, John W, 1998. "The Impact of Industry Structure and Penalty Policies on Incentives for Compliance and Regulatory Enforcement," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 127-148, September.
    11. Baumann Florian & Friehe Tim, 2016. "Competitive Pressure and Corporate Crime," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 647-687, April.
    12. A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), 2007. "Handbook of Law and Economics," Handbook of Law and Economics, Elsevier, edition 1, volume 1, number 1.
    13. Mookherjee, Dilip & Png, I P L, 1995. "Corruptible Law Enforcers: How Should They Be Compensated?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 105(428), pages 145-159, January.
    14. Min Chen & Konstantinos Serfes, 2012. "Minimum quality standard regulation under imperfect quality observability," Journal of Regulatory Economics, Springer, vol. 41(2), pages 269-291, April.
    15. Chalk, Andrew, 1986. "Market Forces and Aircraft Safety: The Case of the DC-10," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 43-60, January.
    16. Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 1993. "A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262121743, December.
    17. Dechenaux, Emmanuel & Samuel, Andrew, 2014. "Announced vs. surprise inspections with tipping-off," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 167-183.
    18. Edward P. Lazear, 2006. "Speeding, Terrorism, and Teaching to the Test," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 121(3), pages 1029-1061.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Matthew D. Rablen & Andrew Samuel, 2021. "Self‐reporting and Market Structure," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 88(351), pages 782-808, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Baumann Florian & Friehe Tim, 2016. "Competitive Pressure and Corporate Crime," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 16(2), pages 647-687, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Andrew Samuel & Ajit Mishra, 2022. "Does it matter who extorts? Extortion by competent and incompetent enforcers," Scottish Journal of Political Economy, Scottish Economic Society, vol. 69(3), pages 328-344, July.
    4. Buechel, Berno & Feess, Eberhard & Muehlheusser, Gerd, 2020. "Optimal law enforcement with sophisticated and naïve offenders," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 177(C), pages 836-857.
    5. Mungan Murat C., 2020. "The Optimal Standard of Proof with Adjudication Avoidance," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 16(1), pages 1-7, March.
    6. Louis Kaplow, 2017. "Optimal Multistage Adjudication," NBER Working Papers 23364, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Buehler, Stefan & Nicolas Eschenbaum, 2018. "Explaining Escalating Fines and Prices: The Curse of Positive Selection," Economics Working Paper Series 1807, University of St. Gallen, School of Economics and Political Science.
    8. Mark Koyama, 2012. "Prosecution Associations in Industrial Revolution England: Private Providers of Public Goods?," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(1), pages 95-130.
    9. Friehe, Tim & Miceli, Thomas J., 2015. "Focusing law enforcement when offenders can choose location," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 105-112.
    10. Louis Kaplow, 2017. "Optimal Multistage Adjudication," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 33(4), pages 613-652.
    11. Mark Koyama, 2014. "The law & economics of private prosecutions in industrial revolution England," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 159(1), pages 277-298, April.
    12. Pradiptyo, Rimawan, 2012. "Does Corruption Pay in Indonesia? If So, Who are Benefited the Most?," MPRA Paper 41384, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Fluet, Claude & Galbiati, Rpbertp, 2016. "Lois et normes : les enseignements de l'économie comportementale," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 92(1-2), pages 191-215, Mars-Juin.
    14. Pedro Herrera & Oscar Millones, 2011. "¿Cuál Es El Costo De La Contaminación Ambiental Minera Sobre Los Recursos Hídricos En El Perú?," Documentos de Trabajo / Working Papers 2011-321, Departamento de Economía - Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú.
    15. Šastitko, Andrej E., 2013. "Effects of third party errors," EconStor Preprints 121747, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    16. Matteo Rizzolli & Luca Stanca, 2012. "Judicial Errors and Crime Deterrence: Theory and Experimental Evidence," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 55(2), pages 311-338.
    17. Nicolas Vaillant & François-Charles Wolff, 2010. "Does punishment of minor sexual offences deter rapes? Longitudinal evidence from France," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 59-71, August.
    18. Thomas J. Miceli & Murat C. Mungan, 2021. "The limit of law: factors influencing the decision to make harmful acts illegal," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 22(3), pages 293-307, September.
    19. Bruno Deffains & Claude Fluet, 2020. "Social Norms and Legal Design," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 36(1), pages 139-169.
    20. Deffains, Bruno & Espinosa, Romain & Fluet, Claude, 2019. "Laws and norms: Experimental evidence with liability rules," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    detection avoidance; compliance; oligopoly; unannounced inspections; announced inspections;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L13 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Oligopoly and Other Imperfect Markets
    • L15 - Industrial Organization - - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance - - - Information and Product Quality
    • K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law

    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:bpj:bejeap:v:19:y:2019:i:1:p:20:n:10. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.degruyter.com .

    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.