Post-Cartel Pricing during Litigation
AbstractStandard methods in the U.S. for calculating antitrust damages in price-fixing cases is shown to create a strategic incentive for firms to price above the non-collusive price after the cartel has dissolved. This results in an overestimate of the but for price and an underestimate of the level of damages. The extent of this upward bias in the but for price is greater, the longer the cartel was in place and the more concentrated is the industry.
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 The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics in its series Economics Working Paper Archive with number 488.
Date of creation: Dec 2002
Date of revision: Jun 2003
Other versions of this item:
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.:
- Robert H. Porter & J. Douglas Zona, 1999.
"Ohio School Milk Markets: An Analysis of Bidding,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
The RAND Corporation, vol. 30(2), pages 263-288, Summer.
- Lawrence J. White, 1999.
"Lysine and Price Fixing: How Long? How Severe?,"
99-02, New York University, Leonard N. Stern School of Business, Department of Economics.
- John M. Connor, 2000. "Archer Daniels Midland:Price Fixer To The World," Working Papers 00-11, Purdue University, College of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics.
- John M. Connor, 1998. "What Can We Learn From The Adm Global Price Conspiracies?," Working Papers 98-14, Purdue University, College of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics.
- 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 531-36, August.
- Xavier Vives, 2001. "Oligopoly Pricing: Old Ideas and New Tools," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 026272040x, June.
- Maarten Pieter Schinkel & Jan Tuinstra & Jakob Rüggeberg, 2008.
"Illinois Walls: how barring indirect purchaser suits facilitates collusion,"
RAND Journal of Economics,
RAND Corporation, vol. 39(3), pages 683-698.
- RÃ¼ggeberg, J. & Schinkel, M.P. & Tuinstra, J., 2005. "Illinois Walls: How barring indirect purchaser suits facilitates collusion," CeNDEF Working Papers 05-10, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Center for Nonlinear Dynamics in Economics and Finance.
- Fonseca, Miguel A. & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2012.
"Explicit vs. tacit collusion: The impact of communication in oligopoly experiments,"
DICE Discussion Papers
65, Heinrich‐Heine‐Universität Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
- Fonseca, Miguel A. & Normann, Hans-Theo, 2012. "Explicit vs. tacit collusion—The impact of communication in oligopoly experiments," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 56(8), pages 1759-1772.
- Roman Inderst & Frank Maier-Rigaud & Ulrich Schwalbe, 2013. "Quantifizierung von Schäden durch Wettbewerbsverstöße," Working Papers 2013-ECO-08, IESEG School of Management.
- Harrington, Joseph Jr. & Chen, Joe, 2006.
"Cartel pricing dynamics with cost variability and endogenous buyer detection,"
International Journal of Industrial Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1185-1212, November.
- Joseph E. Harrington, Jr. & Joe Chen, 2005. "Cartel Pricing Dynamics with Cost Variability and Endogenous Buyer Detection," CIRJE F-Series CIRJE-F-359, CIRJE, Faculty of Economics, University of Tokyo.
- Joseph E Harrington Jr & Joe Chen, 2002. "Cartel Pricing Dynamics with Cost Variability and Endogenous Buyer Detection," Economics Working Paper Archive 514, The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics, revised Sep 2004.
- Gregory Werden, 2008. "Assessing the Effects of Antitrust Enforcement in the United States," De Economist, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 433-451, December.
- Kaplow, Louis & Shapiro, Carl, 2007.
Handbook of Law and Economics,
- Kaplow, Louis & Shapiro, Carl, 2007. "Antitrust," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt9pt7p9bm, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
- Louis Kaplow & Carl Shapiro, 2007. "Antitrust," NBER Working Papers 12867, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Beschorner, Patrick Frank Ernst & Hüschelrath, Kai, 2009. "Ökonomische Aspekte der privaten Durchsetzung des Kartellrechts," ZEW Discussion Papers 09-075, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
- Hans W. Friederiszick & Lars-Hendrik Röller, 2010. "Quantification of Harm in Damages Actions for Antitrust Infringements: Insights from German Cartel Cases," ESMT Research Working Papers ESMT-10-001, ESMT European School of Management and Technology.
- António Brandão & Luís Guimarães & Carlos Seixas, 2011. "The Relationship between Trigger Price and Punishment Period in Green and Porter (1984) Game made Endogenous," FEP Working Papers 432, Universidade do Porto, Faculdade de Economia do Porto.
- Joseph E. Harrington, Jr, 2006. "How Do Cartels Operate?," Economics Working Paper Archive 531, The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics.
- Joseph E. Harrington, Jr, 2005. "Detecting Cartels," Economics Working Paper Archive 526, The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics.
- Erutku, Can, 2012. "Testing post-cartel pricing during litigation," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(3), pages 339-342.
- Mats Bergman, 2008. "Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? or Measuring and Evaluating the Effectiveness of Competition Enforcement," De Economist, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 387-409, December.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Nina Agopian).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.