IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v10y2014i1p161-183..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Leniency Program In Korea And Its Effectiveness

Author

Listed:
  • Sae Ran Koh
  • Jinook Jeong

Abstract

In this article, we examine the determinants that induce cartel members to apply for leniency in the case of Korea, using data on detected cartel cases covered from 2005 to April 2012. Factors such as fines before deduction, past years' total fines, total market share of participating firms, number of firms involved, and more are used to test which variables increase the probability that a firm will apply for leniency. We also analyze whether leniency-invoked cases have higher fines before deduction, and whether those cases account for shorter durations of investigation, using the simultaneous equations model with endogenous switching. Our main findings show that cases with a small number of cartelists during the years 2008 and 2009 indicate a higher probability of leniency applications. In addition, fines before leniency were shown to be larger and the lengths of investigation shorter for leniency-applied cases from the estimated sample selection model.

Suggested Citation

  • Sae Ran Koh & Jinook Jeong, 2014. "The Leniency Program In Korea And Its Effectiveness," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 161-183.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:10:y:2014:i:1:p:161-183.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nht023
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Juan Luis Jiménez & Manuel Ojeda-Cabral & José Manuel Ordóñez-de-Haro, 2023. "Who Blows the Whistle on Cartels? Finding the Leniency Applicant at the European Commission," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 63(2), pages 123-153, September.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L49 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Other

    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:oup:jcomle:v:10:y:2014:i:1:p:161-183.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    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.