IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cpi/cpijrn/4.2.2008i=5154.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Tacit vs. Overt Collusion Firm Asymmetries and Numbers: What's the Evidence?

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen Davies
  • Matthew Olczak

Abstract

It is conventional wisdom that collusion is more likely the fewer firms there are in a market and the more symmetric they are. This is often theoretically justified in terms of a repeated non-cooperative game. Although that model fits more easily with tacit than overt collusion, the impression sometimes given is that ‘one model fits all’. Moreover, the empirical literature offers few stylized facts on the most simple of questions how few are few and how symmetric is symmetric? This paper attempts to fill this gap while also exploring the interface of tacit and overt collusion, albeit in an indirect way. First, it identifies the empirical model of tacit collusion that the European Commission appears to have employed in coordinated effects merger cases apparently only fairly symmetric duopolies fit the bill. Second, it shows that, intriguingly, the same story emerges from the quite different experimental literature on tacit collusion. This offers a stark contrast with the findings for a sample of prosecuted cartels; on average, these involve six members (often more) and size asymmetries among members are often considerable. The indirect nature of this ‘evidence’ cautions against definitive conclusions; nevertheless, the contrast offers little comfort for those who believe that the same model does, more or less, fit all.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen Davies & Matthew Olczak, 2008. "Tacit vs. Overt Collusion Firm Asymmetries and Numbers: What's the Evidence?," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 4.
  • Handle: RePEc:cpi:cpijrn:4.2.2008:i=5154
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/tacit-vs-overt-collusion-firm-asymmetries-and-numbers-whats-the-evidence
    Download Restriction: Requires login and subscription

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Malcolm B. Coate & Shawn W. Ulrick, 2016. "Unilateral Effects Analysis in Differentiated Product Markets: Guidelines, Policy, and Change," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 48(1), pages 45-68, February.
    2. Malcolm Coate & Shawn Ulrick, 2016. "Unilateral Effects Analysis in Differentiated Product Markets: Guidelines, Policy, and Change," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 48(1), pages 45-68, February.

    More about this item

    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:cpi:cpijrn:4.2.2008:i=5154. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Lindsay McSweeney). General contact details of provider: https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com .

    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.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.