IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/tin/wpaper/20160002.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Measuring the Effectiveness of Anti-Cartel Interventions: A Conceptual Framework

Author

Listed:
  • Yannis Katsoulacos

    (Athens University of Economics and Business, Athens, Greece)

  • Evgenia Motchenkova

    (VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands)

  • David Ulph

    (University of St Andrews, St Andrews, Fife, Great Britain)

Abstract

This paper develops a model of the birth and death of cartels in the presence of enforcement activities by a Competition Authority (CA). We distinguish three sets of interventions: (a) detecting, prosecuting and penalizing cartels; (b) actions that aim to stop cartel activity in the short-term, immediately following successful prosecution; (c) actions that aim to prevent the re-emergence of prosecuted cartels in the longer term. The last two intervention activities have not been analyzed in the existing literature. In addition we take account of the structure and toughness of penalties. In this framework the enforcement activity of a CA causes industries in which cartels form to oscillate between periods of competitive pricing and periods of cartel pricing. We determine the impact of CA activity on deterred, impeded, and suffered harm. We derive measures of both the total and the marginal effects on welfare resulting from competition authority interventions and show how these break down into measures of the Direct Effect of interventions (i.e. the effect due to cartel activity being impeded) and two Indirect/Behavioral Effects – on Deterrence and Pricing. Finally, we calibrate the model and estimate the fraction of the harm that CAs remove as well as the magnitude of total and marginal welfare effects of anti-cartel interventions.

Suggested Citation

  • Yannis Katsoulacos & Evgenia Motchenkova & David Ulph, 2016. "Measuring the Effectiveness of Anti-Cartel Interventions: A Conceptual Framework," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 16-002/VII, Tinbergen Institute.
    • Handle: RePEc:tin:wpaper:20160002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://papers.tinbergen.nl/16002.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bryant, Peter G & Eckard, E Woodrow, Jr, 1991. "Price Fixing: The Probability of Getting Caught," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(3), pages 531-536, August.
    2. Jonathan B. Baker, 2003. "The Case for Antitrust Enforcement," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 27-50, Fall.
    3. Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., 2004. "Cartel Pricing Dynamics in the Presence of an Antitrust Authority," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(4), pages 651-673, Winter.
    4. Vasiliki Bageri & Yannis Katsoulacos & Giancarlo Spagnolo, 2013. "The Distortive Effects of Antitrust Fines Based on Revenue," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 123(11), pages 545-557, November.
    5. Joseph E. Harrington Jr. & Myong-Hun Chang, 2015. "When Can We Expect a Corporate Leniency Program to Result in Fewer Cartels?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(2), pages 417-449.
    6. Joseph E. Harrington & Myong-Hun Chang, 2009. "Modeling the Birth and Death of Cartels with an Application to Evaluating Competition Policy," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 7(6), pages 1400-1435, December.
    7. Maria Bigoni & Sven-Olof Fridolfsson & Chloé Le Coq & Giancarlo Spagnolo, 2012. "fines, leniency, and rewards in antitrust," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 43(2), pages 368-390, June.
    8. Harrington, Joseph E., 2014. "Penalties and the deterrence of unlawful collusion," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 124(1), pages 33-36.
    9. Peter L. Ormosi, 2014. "A Tip Of The Iceberg? The Probability Of Catching Cartels," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(4), pages 549-566, June.
    10. Joseph E. Harrington, 2005. "Optimal Cartel Pricing In The Presence Of An Antitrust Authority," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 46(1), pages 145-169, February.
    11. Margaret C. Levenstein & Valerie Y. Suslow, 2011. "Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: Determinants of Cartel Duration," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(2), pages 455-492.
    12. Katsoulacos, Yannis & Motchenkova, Evgenia & Ulph, David, 2015. "Penalizing cartels: The case for basing penalties on price overcharge," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 70-80.
    13. Yannis Katsoulacos & David Ulph, 2013. "Antitrust Penalties and the Implications of Empirical Evidence on Cartel Overcharges," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 123(11), pages 558-581, November.
    14. Joseph E. Harrington, Jr, 2011. "When is an antitrust authority not aggressive enough in fighting cartels?," International Journal of Economic Theory, The International Society for Economic Theory, vol. 7(1), pages 39-50, March.
    15. Houba, Harold & Motchenkova, Evgenia & Wen, Quan, 2012. "Competitive prices as optimal cartel prices," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 114(1), pages 39-42.
    16. Harold Houba & Evgenia Motchenkova & Quan Wen, 2010. "Antitrust enforcement with price-dependent fines and detection probabilities," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 30(3), pages 2017-2027.
    17. Stephen Davies & Peter L. Ormosi, 2014. "The economic impact of cartels and anti-cartel enforcement," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2013-07v2, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    18. Myong-Hun Chang & Joseph E. Harrington, Jr., 2008. "The Impact of a Corporate Leniency Program on Antitrust Enforcement and Cartelization," Economics Working Paper Archive 548, The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics.
    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. Stephen Davies & Franco Mariuzzo & Peter L. Ormosi, 2018. "Quantifying The Deterrent Effect Of Anticartel Enforcement," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(4), pages 1933-1949, October.
    2. Yannis Katsoulacos & Evgenia Motchenkova & David Ulph, 2020. "Penalising on the Basis of the Severity of the Offence: A Sophisticated Revenue-Based Cartel Penalty," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 57(3), pages 627-646, November.
    3. Yannis Katsoulacos & Evgenia Motchenkova & David Ulph, 2015. "Measuring the Effectiveness of Anti-cartel Interventions: A Conceptual Framework," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201602, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews, revised 13 Jan 2016.

    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. repec:tin:wpaper:20150141 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Yannis Katsoulacos & Evgenia Motchenkova & David Ulph, 2015. "Measuring the Effectiveness of Anti-cartel Interventions: A Conceptual Framework," Discussion Paper Series, School of Economics and Finance 201602, School of Economics and Finance, University of St Andrews, revised 13 Jan 2016.
    3. Katsoulacos, Yannis & Motchenkova, Evgenia & Ulph, David, 2015. "Penalizing cartels: The case for basing penalties on price overcharge," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 70-80.
    4. Yannis Katsoulacos & Evgenia Motchenkova & David Ulph, 2023. "Measuring the effectiveness of anti‐cartel interventions in the shadow of recidivism," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(4), pages 2393-2407, June.
    5. Bos, Iwan & Davies, Stephen & Harrington, Joseph E. & Ormosi, Peter L., 2018. "Does enforcement deter cartels? A tale of two tails," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 372-405.
    6. Houba Harold & Motchenkova Evgenia & Wen Quan, 2015. "The Effects of Leniency on Cartel Pricing," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 15(2), pages 351-389, July.
    7. Katsoulacos, Yannis & Motchenkova, Evgenia & Ulph, David, 2020. "Combining cartel penalties and private damage actions: The impact on cartel prices," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 73(C).
    8. Katsoulacos, Yannis & Motchenkova, Evgenia & Ulph, David, 2015. "Penalizing cartels: The case for basing penalties on price overcharge," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 70-80.
    9. Berkay Akyapi & Douglas C. Turner, 2022. "Cartel Penalties Under Endogenous Detection," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 61(3), pages 341-371, November.
    10. Stephen Davies & Franco Mariuzzo & Peter L. Ormosi, 2018. "Quantifying The Deterrent Effect Of Anticartel Enforcement," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(4), pages 1933-1949, October.
    11. Moritz Birgit & Becker Martin & Schmidtchen Dieter, 2018. "Measuring the Deterrent Effect of European Cartel Law Enforcement," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 18(3), pages 1-27, July.
    12. Yannis Katsoulacos & Evgenia Motchenkova & David Ulph, 2020. "Penalising on the Basis of the Severity of the Offence: A Sophisticated Revenue-Based Cartel Penalty," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 57(3), pages 627-646, November.
    13. Joseph E. Harrington, Jr. & Yanhao Wei, 2014. "What Can the Duration of Discovered Cartels Tell Us About the Duration of Cartels?," PIER Working Paper Archive 14-042, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    14. Emons, Winand, 2020. "The effectiveness of leniency programs when firms choose the degree of collusion," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    15. Stephen Davies & Peter L. Ormosi, 2014. "The economic impact of cartels and anti-cartel enforcement," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2013-07v2, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    16. Stephen Davies & Peter Ormosi, 2013. "The Impact of Competition Policy: What are the Known Unknowns?," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2013-07, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    17. Florence THEPOT & Jacques THEPOT, 2017. "Collusion, Managerial incentives and antitrust fines," Working Papers of LaRGE Research Center 2017-06, Laboratoire de Recherche en Gestion et Economie (LaRGE), Université de Strasbourg.
    18. Katsoulacos, Yannis & Motchenkova, Evgenia & Ulph, David, 2014. "Penalizing Cartels: The Case for Basing Penalties on Price Overcharge," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN 2015-15, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Iwan Bos & Stephen Davies & Peter L. Ormosi, 2014. "The deterrent effect of anti-cartel enforcement: A tale of two tails," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2014-06v2, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    20. Aditya Bhattacharjea & Oindrila De, 2021. "India’s Cartel Penalty Practices, Optimal Restitution and Deterrence," IEG Working Papers 424, Institute of Economic Growth.
    21. González, Xulia & Moral, María J., 2019. "Effects of antitrust prosecution on retail fuel prices," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Antitrust Enforcement; Antitrust Law; Cartel; Oligopoly; Repeated Games;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L4 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies
    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • D43 - Microeconomics - - Market Structure, Pricing, and Design - - - Oligopoly and Other Forms of Market Imperfection
    • C73 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - Stochastic and Dynamic Games; Evolutionary Games

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:tin:wpaper:20160002. 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: Tinbergen Office +31 (0)10-4088900 (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/tinbenl.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.