(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)"> (This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)">
[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/indorg/v24y2006i6p1267-1297.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Imperfect competition law enforcement

Author

Listed:
  • Schinkel, Maarten Pieter
  • Tuinstra, Jan
Abstract
Competition policy is a subject of often heated debate. Competition authorities, seeking to battle anticompetitive acts in complex cases to the best of their abilities, regularly find themselves advised by rival economic theories and disputed empirical analyses. As a consequence, there is a real possibility that they may occasionally err, missing true violations of competition law or finding firms liable that have actually done nothing but good competition. In this paper, possible consequences of such imperfect competition law enforcement on firm strategies are considered. In a simple cartel setting, it is found that the incidence of anti-competitive behavior increases in both types of enforcement errors: Type II errors decrease expected fines, while Type I errors encourage industries to collude precautionary when they face the risk of false allegations. Hence, fallible antitrust enforcement may stifle genuine competition. Moreover, when enforcement error are non-negligible, competition authorities run the risk of being over-zealous, in the sense that welfare is best served by an authority that is selective in its targeting of alleged anticompetitive acts.
(This abstract was borrowed from another version of this item.)

Suggested Citation

  • Schinkel, Maarten Pieter & Tuinstra, Jan, 2006. "Imperfect competition law enforcement," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1267-1297, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:indorg:v:24:y:2006:i:6:p:1267-1297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167-7187(06)00050-6
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Steven Shavell & A. Mitchell Polinsky, 2000. "The Economic Theory of Public Enforcement of Law," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 38(1), pages 45-76, March.
    2. Png, I. P. L., 1986. "Optimal subsidies and damages in the presence of judicial error," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 6(1), pages 101-105, June.
    3. 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.
    4. Motta, Massimo & Vasconcelos, Helder, 2005. "Efficiency gains and myopic antitrust authority in a dynamic merger game," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 23(9-10), pages 777-801, December.
    5. Salant, Stephen W, 1987. "Treble Damage Awards in Private Lawsuits for Price Fixing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(6), pages 1326-1336, December.
    6. Baumol, William J & Ordover, Janusz A, 1985. "Use of Antitrust to Subvert Competition," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(2), pages 247-265, May.
    7. James Andreoni & Brian Erard & Jonathan Feinstein, 1998. "Tax Compliance," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 36(2), pages 818-860, June.
    8. 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.
    9. Block, Michael Kent & Nold, Frederick Carl, 1981. "The Deterrent Effect of Antitrust Enforcement," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(3), pages 429-445, June.
    10. Ping Lin & Baldev Raj & Michael Sandfort & Daniel Slottje, 2000. "The US Antitrust System and Recent Trends in Antitrust Enforcement," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(3), pages 255-306, July.
    11. Daniel F. Spulber, 1989. "Regulation and Markets," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262192756, April.
    12. Kaplow, Louis, 1994. "The Value of Accuracy in Adjudication: An Economic Analysis," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 23(1), pages 307-401, January.
    13. Souam, Said, 2001. "Optimal antitrust policy under different regimes of fines," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 1-26, January.
    14. Hugh C. Briggs III & Kathleen D. Huryn & Mark E. McBride, 1996. "Treble Damages and the Incentive to Sue and Settle," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(4), pages 770-786, Winter.
    15. Mattoo, Aaditya, 2001. "Can no competition policy be better than some competition policy?," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 55-77, January.
    16. Margaret C. Levenstein & Valerie Y. Suslow, 2002. "What Determines Cartel Success?," UMASS Amherst Economics Working Papers 2002-01, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Department of Economics.
    17. Besanko, David & Spulber, Daniel F, 1989. "Antitrust Enforcement under Asymmetric Information," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(396), pages 408-425, June.
    18. Tomaso Duso & Damien J. Neven & Lars-Hendrik Röller, 2007. "The Political Economy of European Merger Control: Evidence using Stock Market Data," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 50(3), pages 455-489.
    19. Kaplow, Louis & Shavell, Steven, 1994. "Optimal Law Enforcement with Self-Reporting of Behavior," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 102(3), pages 583-606, June.
    20. Baker, Jonathan B, 1988. "Private Information and the Deterrent Effect of Antitrust Damage Remedies," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 385-408, Fall.
    21. repec:bla:jindec:v:47:y:1999:i:3:p:263-83 is not listed on IDEAS
    22. Philippe Cyrenne, 1999. "On Antitrust Enforcement and the Deterrence of Collusive Behaviour," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 14(3), pages 257-272, May.
    23. Ghosal, Vivek & Gallo, Joseph, 2001. "The cyclical behavior of the Department of Justice's antitrust enforcement activity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 27-54, January.
    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. Katsoulacos, Yannis & Ulph, David, 2014. "Decision Errors, Legal Uncertainty and Welfare: a General Treatment," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN 2015-09, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    2. Lang, Matthias, 2017. "Legal uncertainty as a welfare enhancing screen," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 274-289.
    3. Katsoulacos, Yannis & Ulph, David, 2014. "Legal Uncertainty, Competition Law Enforcement Procedures and Optimal Penalties," SIRE Discussion Papers 2015-12, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    4. Bernardo Guimaraes & Bruno Meyerhof Salama, 2023. "Permitting Prohibitions," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(1), pages 241-271.
    5. Guimarães, Bernardo de Vasconcellos & Salama, Bruno Meyerhof, 2017. "Contingent judicial deference: theory and application to usury laws," Textos para discussão 440, FGV EESP - Escola de Economia de São Paulo, Fundação Getulio Vargas (Brazil).
    6. Damien Neven & Hans Zenger, 2008. "Ex Post Evaluation of Enforcement: A Principal-Agent Perspective," De Economist, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 477-490, December.
    7. Ghebrihiwet, N. & Motchenkova, E.I., 2010. "Leniency programs in the presence of judicial errors," Serie Research Memoranda 0008, VU University Amsterdam, Faculty of Economics, Business Administration and Econometrics.
    8. Katsoulacos, Yannis & Ulph, David, 2017. "Regulatory decision errors, Legal Uncertainty and welfare: A general treatment," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 326-352.
    9. Paolo Buccirossi & Lorenzo Ciari & Tomaso Duso & Giancarlo Spagnolo & Cristiana Vitale, 2011. "Measuring The Deterrence Properties Of Competition Policy: The Competition Policy Indexes," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(1), pages 165-204.
    10. Will, Birgit E. & Schmidtchen, Dieter, 2008. "Fighting cartels: some economics of council regulation (EC) 1/2003," CSLE Discussion Paper Series 2008-02, Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics.
    11. Maarten Pieter Schinkel, 2008. "Forensic Economics In Competition Law Enforcement," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(1), pages 1-30.
    12. Grajzl, Peter & Baniak, Andrzej, 2018. "Private enforcement, corruption, and antitrust design," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 284-307.
    13. Katsoulacos, Yannis & Ulph, David, 2014. "Legal Uncertainty, Competition Law Enforcement Procedures and Optimal Penalties," 2007 Annual Meeting, July 29-August 1, 2007, Portland, Oregon TN 2015-12, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    14. Michiel Bijlsma & Roel van Elk, 2008. "Opportunistic competition law enforcement," CPB Discussion Paper 110.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    15. Michiel Bijlsma & Roel van Elk, 2008. "Opportunistic competition law enforcement," CPB Discussion Paper 110, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    16. Hüschelrath, Kai, 2009. "Methodologische Grundlagen einer Evaluation von Wettbewerbspolitik," ZEW Discussion Papers 09-084, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    17. Tim Reuter, 2012. "Private antitrust enforcement revisited: The role of private incentives to report evidence to the antitrust authority," Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz 2012-04, Department of Economics, University of Konstanz.
    18. Katsoulacos, Yannis & Ulph, David, 2014. "Decision Errors, Legal Uncertainty and Welfare: a General Treatment," SIRE Discussion Papers 2015-09, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    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. Claudio Calcagno, 2012. "Stand-alone private antitrust damages: (how) should competition authorities react?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 365-389, October.
    21. Guimaraesy, Bernardo & Meyerhof Salama, Bruno, 2017. "Contingent judicial deference: theory and application to usury laws," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 86146, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    22. Katsoulacos, Yannis & Ulph, David, 2014. "Decision Errors, Legal Uncertainty and Welfare: a General Treatment," SIRE Discussion Papers 2015-09, Scottish Institute for Research in Economics (SIRE).
    23. Lars Sørgard, 2009. "Optimal Merger Policy: Enforcement Vs. Deterrence," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 438-456, September.

    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. David BARTOLINI & Alberto ZAZZARO, 2008. "Are Antitrust Fines Friendly to Competition? An Endogenous Coalition Formation Approach to Collusive Cartels," Working Papers 325, Universita' Politecnica delle Marche (I), Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche e Sociali.
    2. 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.
    3. Bartolini David & Zazzaro Alberto, 2011. "The Impact of Antitrust Fines on the Formation of Collusive Cartels," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-30, September.
    4. 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..
    5. Maarten Pieter Schinkel & Jan Tuinstra & Jakob Rüggeberg, 2008. "Illinois Walls: how barring indirect purchaser suits facilitates collusion," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 683-698, September.
    6. Flavia Roldán, 2012. "Collusive Networks in Market‐Sharing Agreements in the Presence of an Antitrust Authority," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 21(4), pages 965-987, December.
    7. Carlos Ponce & Flavia Roldán, 2016. "Antitrust policies in network environments," Documentos de Investigación 112, Universidad ORT Uruguay. Facultad de Administración y Ciencias Sociales.
    8. Robert Feinberg & Kara Reynolds, 2010. "The Determinants of State-Level Antitrust Activity," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 37(3), pages 179-196, November.
    9. Harrington, Joseph Jr. & Chen, Joe, 2006. "Cartel pricing dynamics with cost variability and endogenous buyer detection," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1185-1212, November.
    10. Gianmaria Martini & Cinzia Rovesti, 2004. "Antitrust policy and price collusion. Public agencies vs delegation," Recherches économiques de Louvain, De Boeck Université, vol. 70(2), pages 127-151.
    11. 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).
    12. David Bartolini & Alberto Zazzaro, 2010. "The Anticompetitive Effects of the Antitrust Policy," Contributions to Economics, in: Giorgio Calcagnini & Enrico Saltari (ed.), The Economics of Imperfect Markets, chapter 0, pages 213-232, Springer.
    13. A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell, 2005. "Economic Analysis of Law," Discussion Papers 05-005, Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
    14. Roldan, Flavia, 2011. "Covert networks and antitrust policy," IESE Research Papers D/932, IESE Business School.
    15. Roldan, Flavia, 2010. "Collusive networks in market-sharing agreements under the presence of an antitrust authority," IESE Research Papers D/854, IESE Business School.
    16. Lando, Henrik, 2000. "The Optimal Standard of Proof in Criminal Law When Both Fairness and Deterrence Matter," Working Papers 2000-7, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Finance.
    17. Harold Houba & Evgenia Motchenkova & Quan Wen, 2018. "Legal Principles in Antitrust Enforcement," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 120(3), pages 859-893, July.
    18. Giovanni Immordino & Michele Polo, 2008. "Judicial Errors, Legal Standards and Innovative Activity," CSEF Working Papers 196, Centre for Studies in Economics and Finance (CSEF), University of Naples, Italy, revised 04 Jun 2010.
    19. Thierry Pénard & Saïd Souam, 2002. "Collusion et politique de la concurrence en information asymétrique," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 66, pages 209-233.
    20. Claudio Calcagno, 2012. "Stand-alone private antitrust damages: (how) should competition authorities react?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 34(2), pages 365-389, 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:eee:indorg:v:24:y:2006:i:6:p:1267-1297. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505551 .

    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.