Private antitrust enforcement revisited: The role of private incentives to report evidence to the antitrust authority
AbstractIt is commonly believed that the possibility to sue privately for antitrust damages decreases the number of type II errors in enforcement at the cost of creating more type I errors. We extend the analysis by taking into account the fact that private parties often submit evidence during public prosecution. Such parties consider private suit as a partial substitute for public prosecution, as both imply desistance of the violation. The trial option might induce these parties to be less willing to contribute evidence to public cases. Private trials crowd out public prosecution and can have ambiguous effects on the number of enforcement errors.
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 Department of Economics, University of Konstanz in its series Working Paper Series of the Department of Economics, University of Konstanz with number 2012-04.
Length: 26 pages
Date of creation: 13 Feb 2012
Date of revision:
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
- K41 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Litigation Process
- K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law
- L41 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - Monopolization; Horizontal Anticompetitive Practices
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2012-02-27 (All new papers)
- NEP-COM-2012-02-27 (Industrial Competition)
- NEP-CTA-2012-02-27 (Contract Theory & Applications)
- NEP-IND-2012-02-27 (Industrial Organization)
- NEP-LAW-2012-02-27 (Law & Economics)
- NEP-REG-2012-02-27 (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.:
- 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.
- Hugh C. Briggs III & Kathleen D. Huryn & Mark E. McBride, 1996. "Treble Damages and the Incentive to Sue and Settle," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 27(4), pages 770-786, Winter.
- Florian Baumann & Tim Friehe, 2010. "Tax Evasion, Investment, and Firm Activity," FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 66(1), pages 1-14, March.
- Gary S. Becker, 1968.
"Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 76, pages 169.
- Motchenkova, E., 2004.
"Effects of Leniency Programs on Cartel Stability,"
2004-020, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
- Schinkel, Maarten Pieter & Tuinstra, Jan, 2006.
"Imperfect competition law enforcement,"
International Journal of Industrial Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1267-1297, November.
- Shavell, Steven, 1997. "The Fundamental Divergence between the Private and the Social Motive to Use the Legal System," The Journal of Legal Studies, University of Chicago Press, vol. 26(2), pages 575-612, June.
- Bosch, Jean-Claude & Eckard, E Woodrow, Jr, 1991. "The Profitability of Price Fixing: Evidence from Stock Market Reaction to Federal Indictments," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 73(2), pages 309-17, May.
- Frezal, Sylvestre, 2006. "On optimal cartel deterrence policies," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1231-1240, November.
- Tomaso Duso & Damien J. Neven & Lars-Hendrik RÃ¶ller, 2007.
"The Political Economy of European Merger Control: Evidence using Stock Market Data,"
Journal of Law and Economics,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 50, pages 455-489.
- Tomaso Duso & Damien J. Neven & Lars-Hendrik Röller, 2002. "The Political Economy of European Merger Control: Evidence using Stock Market Data," CIG Working Papers FS IV 02-34, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
- Duso, Tomaso & Neven, Damien J & Röller, Lars-Hendrik, 2003. "The Political Economy of European Merger Control: Evidence Using Stock Market Data," CEPR Discussion Papers 3880, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- 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.
- Sauvagnat, Julien, 2010. "Prosecution and Leniency Programs: a Fool's Game," TSE Working Papers 10-188, Toulouse School of Economics (TSE).
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Gundula Hadjiani).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.