This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Analysis of the properties of current penalty schemes for violations of antitrust law

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Motchenkova, E.
Kort, P.M. (Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research)

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

The main feature of the penalty schemes described in current sentencing guidelines is that the fine is based on the accumulated gains from cartel or price-fixing activities for the firm. These gains are usually difficult to estimate, but they can be approximated by a fraction of the turnover. The regulations thus suggest modeling the penalty as an increasing function of the accumulated illegal gains from price-fixing to the firm, so that the history of the violation is taken into account. We incorporate these features of the penalty scheme into an optimal control model of a profit-maximizing firm under antitrust enforcement. In order to determine the effect of taking into account "the history of the violation", we compare the outcome of this model with a model where the penalty is fixed. The main result of the analysis of the later model is that complete deterrence can be achieved only at the cost of shutting down the firm. The proportional scheme improves upon the fixed penalty since it can ensure complete deterrence in the long run, even when penalties are moderate. Phase-diagram analysis shows that the higher the probability and severity of punishment, the sooner cartel formation is blocked. Further, a sensitivity analysis is provided to show which strategies are most successful in reducing the degree of price-fixing. It turns out that, when the penalties are already high, the antitrust policy aiming at a further increase in the severity of punishment is less efficient than the policy that increases the probability of punishment.

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.

File URL: http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=12146
File Format: application/pdf
File Function:
Download Restriction: no

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research in its series Discussion Paper with number 97.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation: 2004
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:dgr:kubcen:200497

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://center.uvt.nl

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Corry Stuyts).

Related research
Keywords:

Find related papers by JEL classification:
C61 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Mathematical Methods and Programming - - - Optimization Techniques; Programming Models; Dynamic Analysis
L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices
K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

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.:
  1. Garoupa, Nuno, 2001. "Optimal magnitude and probability of fines," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(9), pages 1765-1771, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  2. Leung, S.F., 1991. "How to Make the Fine Fit the Corporate Crime? An Analysis of Static and Dynamic Optimal Punishment Theories," RCER Working Papers 261, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
    Other versions:
  3. Polinsky, Mitchell & Shavell, Steven, 1979. "The Optimal Tradeoff between the Probability and Magnitude of Fines," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 69(5), pages 880-91, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Cited by:
(explanations, 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.)

  1. Motchenkova, E., 2004. "Effects of leniency programs on cartel stability," Discussion Paper 98, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  2. Leliefeld, D. & Motchenkova, E., 2007. "To Protect in Order to Serve: Adverse Effects of Leniency Programs in View of Industry Asymmetry," Discussion Paper 2007-007, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? IDEAS was launched in September 1997.

This page was last updated on 2009-11-25.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.