Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

An empirical study of the European corporate leniency program

Contents:

Author Info

  • Brenner, Steffen
Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    Leniency programs are widely used as instruments of competition policy. They are supposed to serve two purposes: in the short-run to facilitate the detection of cartels and thereby to reduce cost of legal enforcement, and in the long-run to deter firms from antitrust abuse. In our empirical study of the 1996 EU Leniency Program, we find evidence indicating that the program provides incentives to reveal information on criminal activities in the sense that agencies are better informed about the cartel conduct than they would be absent the program. Investigation and prosecution becomes faster under the leniency program by about 1.5Â years. Finally, we consider sufficient conditions for the destabilizing effect of leniency that regard the number and duration of detected cartels. Our data do not support the view that these conditions are satisfied for this program.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V8P-4VSB131-1/2/6f3fdf8767d6e3725daa81081ce4f21e
    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 under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal International Journal of Industrial Organization.

    Volume (Year): 27 (2009)
    Issue (Month): 6 (November)
    Pages: 639-645

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:eee:indorg:v:27:y:2009:i:6:p:639-645

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505551

    Related research

    Keywords: Cartel stability Leniency Amnesty Self-reporting Antitrust;

    References

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
    as in new window
    1. Louis Kaplow & Steven Shavell, 1991. "Optimal Law Enforcement with Self-Reporting of Behavior," NBER Working Papers 3822, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. José Apesteguía & Martin Dufwenberg & Reinhard Selten, 2003. "Blowing the Whistle," Documentos de Trabajo - Lan Gaiak Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra 0303, Departamento de Economía - Universidad Pública de Navarra, revised 2003.
    3. John C. Harsanyi & Reinhard Selten, 1988. "A General Theory of Equilibrium Selection in Games," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262582384, December.
    4. Edward J Green & Robert H Porter, 1997. "Noncooperative Collusion Under Imperfect Price Information," Levine's Working Paper Archive 1147, David K. Levine.
    5. Abreu, Dilip, 1988. "On the Theory of Infinitely Repeated Games with Discounting," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 56(2), pages 383-96, March.
    6. Jeroen Hinloopen & Adriaan R. Soetevent, 2008. "Laboratory evidence on the effectiveness of corporate leniency programs," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 39(2), pages 607-616.
    7. Motchenkova, E. & Laan, R., 2005. "Strictness of Leniency Programs and Cartels of Asymmetric Firms," Discussion Paper 2005-74, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    8. Dick, Andrew R, 1996. "When Are Cartels Stable Contracts?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(1), pages 241-83, April.
    9. Jacquemin, Alexis & Nambu, Tsuruhiko & Dewez, Isabelle, 1981. "A Dynamic Analysis of Export Cartels: The Japanese Case," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 91(363), pages 685-96, September.
    10. Slade, Margaret E, 1989. "Price Wars in Price-Setting Supergames," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 56(223), pages 295-310, August.
    11. Hay, George A & Kelley, Daniel, 1974. "An Empirical Survey of Price Fixing Conspiracies," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 17(1), pages 13-38, April.
    12. Levenstein, Margaret C, 1997. "Price Wars and the Stability of Collusion: A Study of the Pre-World War I Bromine Industry," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(2), pages 117-37, June.
    13. Evenett, Simon J. & Levenstein, Margaret C. & Suslow, Valerie Y., 2001. "International cartel enforcement : lessons from the 1990s," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2680, The World Bank.
    14. Posner, Richard A, 1970. "A Statistical Study of Antitrust Enforcement," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(2), pages 365-419, October.
    15. Motta, Massimo & Polo, Michele, 2000. "Leniency Programs and Cartel Prosecution," CEPR Discussion Papers 2349, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    16. Kiefer, Nicholas M, 1988. "Economic Duration Data and Hazard Functions," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 26(2), pages 646-79, June.
    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 in new window

    Cited by:
    1. LEFOUILI, Yassine & ROUX, Catherine, 2010. "Leniency programs for multimarket firms: The effect of Amnesty Plus on cartel formation," CORE Discussion Papers 2010021, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
    2. Acconcia, Antonio & Immordino, Giovanni & Piccolo, Salvatore & Rey, Patrick, 2013. "Accomplice-Witness and Organized Crime: Theory and Evidence from Italy," CEPR Discussion Papers 9543, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    3. Sauvagnat, Julien, 2014. "Are leniency programs too generous?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 123(3), pages 323-326.
    4. Barbara Baarsma & Ron Kemp & Rob Noll & Jo Seldeslachts, 2012. "Let’s Not Stick Together: Anticipation of Cartel and Merger Control in The Netherlands," De Economist, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 357-376, December.
    5. Jay Pil Choi & Heiko Gerlach, 2010. "Global Cartels, Leniency Programs and International Antitrust Cooperation," CESifo Working Paper Series 3005, CESifo Group Munich.
    6. Hyytinen, Ari & Steen, Frode & Toivanen, Otto, 2010. "Cartels Uncovered," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 10/2010, Department of Economics, Norwegian School of Economics.
    7. Clemens, Georg & Rau, Holger A., 2014. "Do leniency policies facilitate collusion? Experimental evidence," DICE Discussion Papers 130, Heinrich‐Heine‐Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    8. Patrice Bougette & Christian Montet & Florent Venayre, 2006. "L'efficacité économique des programmes de clémence," Post-Print halshs-00476807, HAL.
    9. Klein, Gordon J. & Günster, Andrea, 2013. "Enforcement of European Competition Policy - Impact on Competition and Efficiency," Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79989, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    10. Dennis Sánchez Navarro, 2013. "Eficacia y asimetrías de los programas de delación en un contexto multimercado: un análisis del caso colombiano en el marco del TLC con Estados Unidos," ESTUDIOS ECONÓMICOS SIC 010905, SUPERINTENDENCIA DE INDUSTRIA Y COMERCIO.
    11. Sánchez Navarro, Dennis, 2013. "Eficacia y asimetrías de los programas de delación en un contexto multi-mercado: un análisis del caso colombiano en el marco del TLC con Estados Unidos
      [Efficacy and asymmetries of the leniency
      ," MPRA Paper 48699, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Zhou, J., 2012. "Endogenous Lysine Strategy Profile and Cartel Duration: An Instrumental Variables Approach," Discussion Paper 2012-009, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:indorg:v:27:y:2009:i:6:p:639-645. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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