IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cem/jaecon/v9y2006n2p361-380.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating overcharges in antitrust cases using a reduced-form approach: Methods and issues

Author

Abstract

This paper presents several methods and discusses salient issues pertaining to the use of reduced-form models to estimate overcharges in antitrust matters (e.g., price-fixing) where "but-for" prices may be less than actual prices during the anticompetitive period. In particular, two common types of reduced-form estimations are discussed: the "dummyvariable approach" and the "forecasting approach". Under either methodology, an error correction model is then specified as one way to address technical problems often found in applied time-series analysis - nonstationary data and the existence of short-term and longterm dynamics.

Suggested Citation

  • James F. Nieberding, 2006. "Estimating overcharges in antitrust cases using a reduced-form approach: Methods and issues," Journal of Applied Economics, Universidad del CEMA, vol. 9, pages 361-380, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cem:jaecon:v:9:y:2006:n:2:p:361-380
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ucema.edu.ar/publicaciones/download/volume9/nieberding.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Baker, Jonathan B & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1999. "Empirical Methods in Antitrust Litigation: Review and Critique," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 1(1-2), pages 386-435, Fall.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Mario Forni, 2004. "Using Stationarity Tests in Antitrust Market Definition," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 6(2), pages 441-464.
    5. Higgins, Richard S. & Johnson, Paul A., 2003. "The mean effect of structural change on the dependent variable is accurately measured by the intercept change alone," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 255-259, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kai Hüschelrath & Kathrin Müller & Tobias Veith, 2013. "Concrete Shoes For Competition: The Effect Of The German Cement Cartel On Market Price," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 97-123.
    2. Marcel Boyer & Rachidi Kotchoni, 2015. "How Much Do Cartel Overcharge?," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 47(2), pages 119-153, September.
    3. H. Peter Boswijk & Maurice J. G. Bun & Maarten Pieter Schinkel, 2019. "Cartel dating," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 34(1), pages 26-42, January.
    4. Michael D. Hausfeld & Gordon C. Rausser & Gareth J. Macartney & Michael P. Lehmann & Sathya S. Gosselin, 2014. "Antitrust class proceedings – Then and now," Research in Law and Economics, in: The Law and Economics of Class Actions, volume 26, pages 77-133, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    5. Welter, Dominik & Napel, Stefan, 2016. "Responsibility-based allocation of cartel damages," VfS Annual Conference 2016 (Augsburg): Demographic Change 145886, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    6. Chiarella, Carl & He, Xue-Zhong & Zwinkels, Remco C.J., 2014. "Heterogeneous expectations in asset pricing: Empirical evidence from the S&P500," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 105(C), pages 1-16.
    7. Marcel Boyer & Anne Catherine Faye & Rachidi Kotchoni, 2017. "Challenges and Pitfalls in Cartel Policy and Fining," CIRANO Working Papers 2017s-20, CIRANO.
    8. Carsten J. Crede, 2019. "A Structural Break Cartel Screen for Dating and Detecting Collusion," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 54(3), pages 543-574, May.
    9. Carsten J. Crede, 2015. "A structural break cartel screen for dating and detecting collusion," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2015-11, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    10. Deng Ai, 2020. "Measuring Benchmark Damages in Antitrust Litigation: Extensions and Practical Implications," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-12, January.
    11. Willem H. Boshoff, 2021. "South African competition policy on excessive pricing and its relation to price gouging during the COVID‐19 disaster period," South African Journal of Economics, Economic Society of South Africa, vol. 89(1), pages 112-140, March.
    12. Doose, Anna Maria, 2013. "Methods for calculating cartel damages: A survey," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 83, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    13. Liberty Mncube, 2014. "The South African Wheat Flour Cartel: Overcharges at the Mill," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 487-509, December.
    14. Tsay, Wen-Jen, 2021. "Estimating cartel damages with model averaging approaches," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    15. Marcel Boyer & Rachidi Kotchoni, 2015. "How Much Do Cartel Overcharge? (The "Working Paper" Version)," CIRANO Working Papers 2015s-37, CIRANO.
    16. Kuuluvainen, Jari & Korhonen, Jaana & Wang, Lanhui & Toppinen, Anne, 2021. "Wood market cartel in Finland 1997–2004: Analyzing price effects using the indicator approach," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).

    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. 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.
    2. Marcel Boyer & Rachidi Kotchoni, 2011. "The Econometrics of Cartel Overcharges," Working Papers hal-00631429, HAL.
    3. Connor, John M. & Bolotova, Yuliya, 2006. "Cartel overcharges: Survey and meta-analysis," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1109-1137, November.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Tsay, Wen-Jen, 2021. "Estimating cartel damages with model averaging approaches," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(C).
    7. Stenborg, Markku, 2002. "Economics of Joint Dominance," Discussion Papers 834, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    8. Boone, Jan & Müller, Wieland, 2012. "The distribution of harm in price-fixing cases," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 265-276.
    9. Horst Entorf, 2010. "Econometric Issues in Antitrust Analysis," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 166(1), pages 78-82, March.
    10. Böckers, Veit & Heimeshoff, Ulrich, 2014. "The extent of European power markets," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 102-111.
    11. Tanja Artiga González & Markus Schmid & David Yermack, 2019. "Does Price Fixing Benefit Corporate Managers?," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(10), pages 4813-4840, October.
    12. Pop, Izabela Luiza, 2015. "Cartels: a Good or a Bad Strategy?," MPRA Paper 67314, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Davies, Stephen & Olczak, Matthew & Coles, Heather, 2011. "Tacit collusion, firm asymmetries and numbers: Evidence from EC merger cases," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 221-231, March.
    14. Andreoli-Versbach, Patrick & Franck, Jens-Uwe, 2015. "Endogenous price commitment, sticky and leadership pricing: Evidence from the Italian petrol market," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 32-48.
    15. Hinloopen, Jeroen & Onderstal, Sander, 2014. "Going once, going twice, reported! Cartel activity and the effectiveness of antitrust policies in experimental auctions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 317-336.
    16. Barr, Jason & Saraceno, Francesco, 2009. "Organization, learning and cooperation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(1-2), pages 39-53, May.
    17. In Lee, 1999. "Non-cooperative Tacit Collusion, Complementary Bidding and Incumbency Premium," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 15(2), pages 115-134, September.
    18. Tomaso Duso & Lars-Hendrik Röller & Jo Seldeslachts, 2014. "Collusion Through Joint R&D: An Empirical Assessment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 96(2), pages 349-370, May.
    19. 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.
    20. 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, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    price-fixing; time-series; reduced-form; estimated overcharges; antitrust;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C22 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Single Equation Models; Single Variables - - - Time-Series Models; Dynamic Quantile Regressions; Dynamic Treatment Effect Models; Diffusion Processes
    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L4 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies

    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:cem:jaecon:v:9:y:2006:n:2:p:361-380. 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: Valeria Dowding (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cemaaar.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.