Industrial economics has successfully clarified the mechanism of collusive conduct and its facilitating factors. But policy implications for remedial actions are less straightforward. This paper provides some supplementary comments from the viewpoint of enforcement issues against price-fixing agreements. There are some disagreements among practitioners concerning the probative value of circumstantial (or economic) evidence. Information exchange may be a possible clue to elucidate the evidentiary standard. On the other hand, there seems to be a unanimous agreement, if appropriately designed, on the desirability of leniency programs. Necessity of leniency programs must be a reflection of stricter standard of proof in court decisions, resource constraints of antitrust enforcer, or increasingly defensive acts of conspirators. Copyright Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005
Download Info
To download:
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the
proper application to
view it first. Information about this may be contained
in the File-Format links below. 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.
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.
Volume (Year): 5 (2005) Issue (Month): 3 (December) Pages: 223-229 Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML
(with abstract),
plain text
(with abstract),
BibTeX,
RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite),
ReDIF