IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea10/61297.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Cartel Dissolution with Effective Antitrust Policy

Author

Listed:
  • Cai, Xiaowei
  • Stiegert, Kyle W.

Abstract

Cartel operations still exist worldwide despite the recent development and enforcement of antitrust laws in scores of countries that previously had no such legal framework. Since 1990, 283 international cartels were discovered by antitrust authorities around the world (Connor 2003). According to a 1990s' sample of U.S. Department of Justice and European Commission prosecuted cases, the discovered cartels operated in a wide variety of industries such as chemicals, metals, paper products, transportation, communication, food, textiles and services (OECD 2002). Were it not for the efforts to deter cartels by the antitrust agencies, there would likely have been many more such arrangements (Connor 2005). The presence and societal impacts of domestic and international private cartels is an important policy issue that has drawn the attention of various key public stakeholders including justice, trade and commerce departments, policymakers, and industry and consumer advocacy groups. Because only the detected cartels are observed, it is difficult to measure the impact of antitrust policy on collusion (Harrington 2006). One central issue is then concerned with whether antitrust agency’s spending on cartel detection is optimal to dissolve cartels under market uncertainty. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to examine theoretically the optimal spending by the antitrust agency when cartel’s profit is uncertain, link the theoretical findings with the observed real world cases, and to provide useful antitrust policy implications. Cartel firms operate in an uncertain environment, facing market demand uncertainty and the possibility of being detected by the antitrust agency. We develop a dynamic model in which an incumbent cartel decides whether or not to dissolve the cartel based on the observed profit and the antitrust agency’s budget level used for cartel detection. At the beginning of each period, the cartel observes its potential short run profit and the budget level that the antitrust agency allocates on cartel detection, and decides whether to keep the cartel or dissolve it. By keeping the cartel in operation, there is a probability that the cartel is detected and hence penalized. By dissolving the cartel, the firms receive competitive profits in the current and future periods. The Bellman equation is solved using the Newton’s method and based on the given parameters, we found the optimal values and the optimal actions when different levels of cartel detection budget allocation are observed. The post-optimality analyses show that the value of the cartel is an upward-sloping function of the profit for any antitrust budget. The critical cartel profit below which the cartel dissolves is calculated when the antitrust agency’s budget allocation increases each year. The higher the observed antitrust budget, the lower the value for the cartel and the higher the profit required to sustain the collusion. Obviously, governments can set budgets sufficient to deter cartels. Our paper sheds light on the effectiveness of current spending levels in assessing whether antitrust enforcement is effective enough to limit cartel formation to an acceptable social level.

Suggested Citation

  • Cai, Xiaowei & Stiegert, Kyle W., 2010. "Cartel Dissolution with Effective Antitrust Policy," 2010 Annual Meeting, July 25-27, 2010, Denver, Colorado 61297, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaea10:61297
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.61297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/61297/files/11544.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.61297?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. John Connor, 2006. "Effectiveness of Antitrust Sanctions on Modern International Cartels," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 6(3), pages 195-223, December.
    2. 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 117-137, June.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. John M. Connor, 2004. "Global Antitrust Prosecutions of Modern International Cartels," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 4(3), pages 239-267, September.
    6. Kyle Bagwell & Robert Staiger, 1997. "Collusion Over the Business Cycle," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(1), pages 82-106, Spring.
    7. Margaret C. Levenstein, 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 117-137, June.
    8. Simon J. Evenett & Margaret C. Levenstein & Valerie Y. Suslow, 2001. "International Cartel Enforcement: Lessons from the 1990s," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 24(9), pages 1221-1245, September.
    9. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Connor, John M., 2003. "Private International Cartels: Effectiveness, Welfare, And Anticartel Enforcement," Staff Papers 28645, Purdue University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
    2. de Roos, Nicolas, 2004. "A model of collusion timing," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 22(3), pages 351-387, March.
    3. Robert M. Feinberg & Minsoo Park, 2015. "Deterrence Effects Of Korean Antitrust Enforcement On Producer Prices And Profit Margins," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(4), pages 917-933.
    4. Harrington, Joseph E. & Hüschelrath, Kai & Laitenberger, Ulrich & Smuda, Florian, 2015. "The discontent cartel member and cartel collapse: The case of the German cement cartel," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 106-119.
    5. Marcel Boyer & Rachidi Kotchoni, 2011. "The Econometrics of Cartel Overcharges," Working Papers hal-00631429, HAL.
    6. Chaim Fershtman & Ariel Pakes, 2000. "A Dynamic Oligopoly with Collusion and Price Wars," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 31(2), pages 207-236, Summer.
    7. Bolotova, Yuliya V., 2009. "Cartel overcharges: An empirical analysis," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 321-341, May.
    8. Garrod, Luke, 2012. "Collusive price rigidity under price-matching punishments," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 471-482.
    9. Andersson, Ola, 2006. "Bargaining in Collusive Markets," Working Papers 2006:21, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    10. Kaplow, Louis, 2018. "Price-fixing policy," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 749-776.
    11. Thorsten Lübbers, 2009. "Is Cartelisation Profitable? A Case Study of the Rhenish Westphalian Coal Syndicate, 1893-1913," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2009_09, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    12. 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.
    13. Prof. Xiaowei Cai Ph.D, 2011. "Antitrust Agencies And Hard-Core Cartels: A Game Theoretic Perspective," Revista Tinerilor Economisti (The Young Economists Journal), University of Craiova, Faculty of Economics and Business Administration, vol. 1(17), pages 150-161, November.
    14. de Roos, Nicolas, 2006. "Examining models of collusion: The market for lysine," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1083-1107, November.
    15. Brenner, Steffen, 2009. "An empirical study of the European corporate leniency program," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 639-645, November.
    16. Michael A. Utton, 2011. "Cartels and Economic Collusion," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14208.
    17. Manganelli, Anton-Giulio, 2012. "Cartel Pricing Dynamics, Price Wars and Cartel Breakdown," TSE Working Papers 12-309, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
    18. Jonathan B. Baker, 2003. "The Case for Antitrust Enforcement," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 17(4), pages 27-50, Fall.
    19. Yassine Badra, 2022. "Price wars in strategical price‐setting supergames: Application to the retail oil industry," Australian Economic Papers, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(3), pages 395-409, September.
    20. Kaplow, Louis & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Antitrust," Handbook of Law and Economics, in: A. Mitchell Polinsky & Steven Shavell (ed.), Handbook of Law and Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 15, pages 1073-1225, Elsevier.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Industrial Organization;

    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:ags:aaea10:61297. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.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.