Antitrust policy and price collusion : public agencies vs delegation
AbstractThis paper investigates the effectiveness of antitrust policy in fighting horizontal collusion under different regimes of policy implementation. We consider two regimes : a public agency regime, where an antitrust authority is in charge of competition policy, and a "delegation" regime, where the policy is chosen by consumers. In both regimes the policy is implemented under discretion. The analysis shows that delegation dominates, both in case of complete and imperfect information about production costs, the public agency regime because consumers credibly start off an higher level of investigation activity than the public agency. This resuit implies that the public agency will fight the cases involving "relevant" anti-competitive activities, while consumers will act also against "minor" violations. The combination of the two regimes yields an higher welfare than having only a public agency in charge of competition policy, because consumers can partially relax the agency's limited resources constraint.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES) in its series Discussion Papers (REL - Recherches Economiques de Louvain) with number 2004021.
Date of creation: 01 Jun 2004
Date of revision:
Antitrust policy; Horizontal collusion; Delegation; Policy regimes;
Other versions of this item:
- 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.
- L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices
- L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation
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.:
- Motta, Massimo & Polo, Michele, 2003.
"Leniency programs and cartel prosecution,"
International Journal of Industrial Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 347-379, March.
- Motta, Massimo & Polo, Michele, 2000. "Leniency Programs and Cartel Prosecution," CEPR Discussion Papers 2349, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Motta, M. & Polo, M., 1999. "Leniency Programs and Cartel Prosecution," Economics Working Papers eco99/23, European University Institute.
- Massimo Motta & Michele Polo, . "Leniency Programs and Cartel Prosecution," Working Papers 150, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
- Saïd Souam, 1997.
"Optimal Antitrust Policy Under Different Regimes of Fines,"
97-37, Centre de Recherche en Economie et Statistique.
- 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.
- Besanko, David & Spulber, Daniel F, 1990. "Are Treble Damages Neutral? Sequential Equilibrium and Private Antitrust Enforcement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 870-87, September.
- James Andreoni & Brian Erard & Jonathan Feinstein, 1998.
Journal of Economic Literature,
American Economic Association, vol. 36(2), pages 818-860, June.
- 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 1326-36, December.
- Banks, Jeffrey S, 1992. "Monopoly Pricing and Regulatory Oversight," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(1), pages 203-33, Spring.
- Besanko, David & Spulber, Daniel F, 1989.
"Delegated Law Enforcement and Noncooperative Behavior,"
Journal of Law, Economics and Organization,
Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 25-52, Spring.
- Besanko, D. & Spulber, D.F., 1988. "Delegated Law Enforcement And Noncooperative Behavior," Papers m8820, Southern California - Department of Economics.
- Besanko, David & Spulber, Daniel F, 1989. "Antitrust Enforcement under Asymmetric Information," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(396), pages 408-25, June.
- Bizjak, John M & Coles, Jeffrey L, 1995. "The Effect of Private Antitrust Litigation on the Stock-Market Valuation of the Firm," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 436-61, June.
- Saïd Souam, 1998.
"Dissuasion de la collusion et efficacité de deux systèmes d'amendes,"
Programme National Persée, vol. 49(3), pages 755-765.
- Saïd Souam, 1998. "Dissuasion de la collusion et efficacité de deux systèmes d'amendes," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 0(3), pages 755-765.
- Schultz, Christian, 1999.
"Monetary Policy, Delegation and Polarisation,"
Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(455), pages 164-78, April.
- Christian Schultz, . "Monetary Policy, Delegation and Polarization," EPRU Working Paper Series 98-19, Economic Policy Research Unit (EPRU), University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
- Christian Schultz, 1998. "Monetary Policy, Delegation and Polarization," Discussion Papers 98-17, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
- Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 1993. "A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262121743.
- Ross, Thomas W, 1984.
"Winners and Losers under the Robinson-Patman Act,"
Journal of Law and Economics,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(2), pages 243-71, October.
- Thomas W. Ross, 1983. "Winners and Losers under the Robinson-Patman Act," University of Chicago - George G. Stigler Center for Study of Economy and State 30, Chicago - Center for Study of Economy and State.
- Block, Michael K & Feinstein, Jonathan S, 1986. "The Spillover Effect of Antitrust Enforcement," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(1), pages 122-31, February.
- Mailath George J. & Okuno-Fujiwara Masahiro & Postlewaite Andrew, 1993. "Belief-Based Refinements in Signalling Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 241-276, August.
- Rogoff, Kenneth, 1985. "The Optimal Degree of Commitment to an Intermediate Monetary Target," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 100(4), pages 1169-89, November.
- 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 429-45, June.
- Bourjade, Sylvain & Rey, Patrick & seabright, paul, 2009.
"Private antitrust enforcement in the presence of pre-trial bargaining,"
34840, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Bourjade, Sylvain & Rey, Patrick & Seabright, Paul, 2009. "Private Antitrust Enforcement in the Presence of Pre-Trial Bargaining," TSE Working Papers 09-041, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
- Bourjade, Sylvain & Rey, Patrick & Seabright, Paul, 2009. "Private Antitrust Enforcement in the Presence of Pre-Trial Bargaining," IDEI Working Papers 499, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
- Schwartz, Warren F. & Wickelgren, Abraham L., 2011. "Optimal antitrust enforcement: Competitor suits, entry, and post-entry competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7), pages 967-972.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sebastien SCHILLINGS).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.