IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/ijecbs/v17y2010i1p33-65.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Analysis of Cartel Duration: Evidence from EC Prosecuted Cartels

Author

Listed:
  • Oindrila De

Abstract

This study first analyses the life span of the cartels convicted by the European Commission during 1990-2008 and explores certain issues regarding the empirical definition of cartel duration. The cross-section analysis then investigates the determinants of cartel break up using a competing risk Cox proportional hazard model. The result shows that external disturbances and changes in the cartels' own structures play a crucial role in cartel demise. Moreover, the cartel members' ability to enforce their agreement through better organization also dictates its success. The analysis also reveals that when a leniency regime is in operation, cartels tend to be more fragile.

Suggested Citation

  • Oindrila De, 2010. "Analysis of Cartel Duration: Evidence from EC Prosecuted Cartels," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(1), pages 33-65.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:ijecbs:v:17:y:2010:i:1:p:33-65 DOI: 10.1080/13571510903516946
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/13571510903516946
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

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

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jo Seldeslachts & Joseph A. Clougherty & Pedro Pita Barros, 2009. "Settle for Now but Block for Tomorrow: The Deterrence Effects of Merger Policy Tools," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 52(3), pages 607-634, August.
    2. Joseph A Clougherty & Michał Grajek, 2008. "The impact of ISO 9000 diffusion on trade and FDI: A new institutional analysis," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, pages 613-633.
    3. Gary S. Becker, 1974. "Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach," NBER Chapters,in: Essays in the Economics of Crime and Punishment, pages 1-54 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Robert W. Crandall & Clifford Winston, 2003. "Does Antitrust Policy Improve Consumer Welfare? Assessing the Evidence," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, pages 3-26.
    5. Barros, Pedro Pita, 2003. "Looking behind the curtain--effects from modernization of European Union competition policy," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(4), pages 613-624, August.
    6. Seldeslachts, Jo & Clougherty, Joseph A. & Barros, Pedro Pita, 2007. "Remedy for Now but Prohibit for Tomorrow: The Deterrence Effects of Merger Policy Tools," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 218, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    7. Robert W. Crandall & Clifford Winston, 2005. "Does antitrust policy improve consumer welfare? Assessing the evidence," Chapters,in: Governments, Competition and Utility Regulation, chapter 2 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    8. Tomaso Duso & Klaus Gugler & Burcin Yurtoglu, 2005. "EU Merger Remedies: A Preliminary Empirical Assessment," CIG Working Papers SP II 2005-16, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    9. Paul L. Joskow, 2002. "Transaction Cost Economics, Antitrust Rules, and Remedies," Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 18(1), pages 95-116, April.
    10. Robert W. Crandall & Clifford Winston, 2005. "Does antitrust policy improve consumer welfare? Assessing the evidence," Chapters,in: Governments, Competition and Utility Regulation, chapter 2 Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. Sah, Raaj K, 1991. "Social Osmosis and Patterns of Crime," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(6), pages 1272-1295, December.
    12. Morgan, Eleanor, 2002. "Steering Mergers Through the EU's Regulatory Rocks:: Remedies Under the EU Merger Control Regulation," European Management Journal, Elsevier, pages 549-561.
    13. Bruce Lyons & Andrei Medvedev, 2007. "Bargaining over Remedies in Merger Regulation," Working Papers 07-3, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia.
    14. Block, Michael Kent & Nold, Frederick Carl, 1981. "The Deterrent Effect of Antitrust Enforcement," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 89(3), pages 429-445, June.
    15. Eckbo, B Espen & Wier, Peggy, 1985. "Antimerger Policy under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act: A Reexamination of the Market Power Hypothesis," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 28(1), pages 119-149, April.
    16. D’Antoni, Massimo & Galbiati, Roberto, 2007. "A signaling theory of nonmonetary sanctions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 204-218.
    17. Feinberg, Robert M, 1980. "Antitrust Enforcement and Subsequent Price Behavior," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, pages 609-612.
    18. Block, Michael K & Feinstein, Jonathan S, 1986. "The Spillover Effect of Antitrust Enforcement," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, pages 122-131.
    19. Eleanor Morgan, 2001. "A Decade of EC Merger Control," International Journal of the Economics of Business, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 451-473.
    20. Eckbo, B Espen, 1992. " Mergers and the Value of Antitrust Deterrence," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 47(3), pages 1005-1029, July.
    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. repec:oup:jcomle:v:10:y:2014:i:1:p:107-136. is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Joan-Ramon Borrell & Juan Luis Jiménez & Carmen García, 2014. "Evaluating Antitrust Leniency Programs," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(1), pages 107-136.
    3. Chen, Zhiqi & Ghosh, Subhadip & Ross, Thomas W., 2015. "Denying leniency to cartel instigators: Costs and benefits," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 19-29.
    4. Zhou, Jun, 2011. "Evaluating Leniency with Missing Information on Undetected Cartels: Exploring Time-Varying Policy Impacts on Cartel Duration," Discussion Paper Series of SFB/TR 15 Governance and the Efficiency of Economic Systems 353, Free University of Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, University of Bonn, University of Mannheim, University of Munich.
    5. Hoang, Cung Truong & Hüschelrath, Kai & Laitenberger, Ulrich & Smuda, Florian, 2014. "Determinants of self-reporting under the European corporate leniency program," ZEW Discussion Papers 14-043, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.
    6. Kunka Petkova & Alfons J. Weichenrieder, 2017. "Price and Quantity Effects of the German Real Estate Transfer Tax," CESifo Working Paper Series 6538, CESifo Group Munich.
    7. Hoang, Cung Truong & Hüschelrath, Kai & Laitenberger, Ulrich & Smuda, Florian, 2014. "Determinants of self-reporting under the European corporate leniency program," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 15-23.
    8. Albert Solé-Ollé & Elisabet Viladecans-Marsal, 2017. "Housing booms and busts and local fiscal policy," Working Papers 2017/05, Institut d'Economia de Barcelona (IEB).
    9. Jan Bouckaert & Hans Degryse & Theon Dijk, 2013. "Bertrand Competition with an Asymmetric No-discrimination Constraint," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 62-83, March.
    10. Jun Zhou, 2016. "The dynamics of leniency application and the knock-on effect of cartel enforcement," Working Papers 13042, Bruegel.
    11. Robert M. Feinberg & Hyunchul Kim & Minsoo Park, 2016. "The Determinants of Cartel Duration in Korea," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 48(4), pages 433-448, June.
    12. Joseph E. Harrington, Jr. & Yanhao Wei, 2014. "What Can the Duration of Discovered Cartels Tell Us About the Duration of Cartels?," PIER Working Paper Archive 14-042, Penn Institute for Economic Research, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania.
    13. Marvao, Catarina & Spagnolo, Giancarlo, 2016. "Cartels and Leniency: Taking stock of what we learnt," SITE Working Paper Series 39, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics, revised 16 Nov 2016.
    14. Fuess, Roland & Lerbs, Oliver, 2017. "Do Local Governments Tax Homeowner Communities Differently?," Working Papers on Finance 1714, University of St. Gallen, School of Finance.

    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:taf:ijecbs:v:17:y:2010:i:1:p:33-65. 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: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CIJB20 .

    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.