IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/doi10.1086-676070.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Evolution of U.S. Cartel Enforcement

Author

Listed:
  • Vivek Ghosal
  • D. Daniel Sokol

Abstract

Antitrust as a whole was transformed owing in large part to Robert Bork in The Antitrust Paradox. This paper examines what Bork said and did not say about cartel enforcement and offers an examination of how the actual structure of cartel enforcement played out relative to what Bork advocated. To provide some perspective on Bork's view of cartel enforcement, we compare his views with those of the other major influential antitrust book of the time by Richard Posner. We identify three distinct stages of cartel enforcement. Stage 1 is characterized by a low number of cartels prosecuted along with low fines and jail terms. Consistent with Bork's vision, stage 2 demonstrates a significant increase in cartels prosecuted, although fines and jail terms remain low. Stage 3 (the current stage) exemplifies a decline in the number of cartels prosecuted relative to stage 2 but with dramatic increases in monetary fines and jail terms.

Suggested Citation

  • Vivek Ghosal & D. Daniel Sokol, 2014. "The Evolution of U.S. Cartel Enforcement," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(S3), pages 51-65.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/676070
    DOI: 10.1086/676070
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/676070
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/676070
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/676070?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    2. 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 531-536, August.
    3. George L. Priest, 2014. "Bork's Strategy and the Influence of the Chicago School on Modern Antitrust Law," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(S3), pages 1-17.
    4. Ghosal, Vivek & Gallo, Joseph, 2001. "The cyclical behavior of the Department of Justice's antitrust enforcement activity," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 27-54, January.
    5. Nathan H. Miller, 2009. "Strategic Leniency and Cartel Enforcement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 750-768, June.
    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. Thomas Bourveau & Guoman She & Alminas Žaldokas, 2020. "Corporate Disclosure as a Tacit Coordination Mechanism: Evidence from Cartel Enforcement Regulations," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(2), pages 295-332, May.
    2. Robert M. Feinberg, 2023. "Patterns and Determinants of Canadian Anti-Cartel and Antidumping Policy: 1990–2019," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 309-327, December.
    3. Vivek Ghosal & D. Daniel Sokol, 2016. "Policy Innovations, Political Preferences, and Cartel Prosecutions," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 48(4), pages 405-432, June.

    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. Vivek Ghosal & D. Daniel Sokol, 2016. "Policy Innovations, Political Preferences, and Cartel Prosecutions," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 48(4), pages 405-432, June.
    2. 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.
    3. Stephen Davies & Peter L. Ormosi, 2014. "The economic impact of cartels and anti-cartel enforcement," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2013-07v2, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    4. Allain, Marie-Laure & Boyer, Marcel & Kotchoni, Rachidi & Ponssard, Jean-Pierre, 2015. "Are cartel fines optimal? Theory and evidence from the European Union," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 38-47.
    5. Ashton, John & Burnett, Tim & Diaz-Rainey, Ivan & Ormosi, Peter, 2021. "Known unknowns: How much financial misconduct is detected and deterred?," Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    6. Jeong Yeol Kim & Charles N. Noussair, 2023. "Leniency Policies and Cartel Success: An Experiment," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 63(2), pages 187-210, September.
    7. Jun Hu, 2021. "Asymmetric punishment, Leniency and Harassment Bribes in China: a selective survey," Working Papers hal-03119491, HAL.
    8. Stephen Davies & Franco Mariuzzo & Peter L. Ormosi, 2018. "Quantifying The Deterrent Effect Of Anticartel Enforcement," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 56(4), pages 1933-1949, October.
    9. Gordon Jochem Klein, 2019. "Cartel Destabilization and Leniency Programs – Empirical Evidence," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(3), pages 1918-1924.
    10. Vande Walle Simon, 2012. "Deterrence of Antitrust Violations: Do Actions for Damages Matter in Japan?," Asian Journal of Law and Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 2(4), pages 1-15, January.
    11. Evgenia Motchenkova & Rob Laan, 2011. "Strictness of leniency programs and asymmetric punishment effect," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 58(4), pages 401-431, December.
    12. Bodnar, Olivia & Fremerey, Melinda & Normann, Hans-Theo & Schad, Jannika Leonie, 2021. "The effects of private damage claims on cartel activity: Experimental evidence," DICE Discussion Papers 315, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE), revised 2021.
    13. Katsoulacos, Yannis & Motchenkova, Evgenia & Ulph, David, 2015. "Penalizing cartels: The case for basing penalties on price overcharge," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 70-80.
    14. Marie-Laure Allain & Marcel Boyer & Jean-Pierre Ponssard & Rachidi Kotchoni, 2011. "The Determination of Optimal Fines in Cartel Cases - The Myth of Underdeterrence," CIRANO Working Papers 2011s-34, CIRANO.
    15. Maria Bigoni & Sven-Olof Fridolfsson & Chloé Le Coq & Giancarlo Spagnolo, 2015. "Trust, Leniency, and Deterrence," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 31(4), pages 663-689.
    16. Iwan Bos & Stephen Davies & Peter L. Ormosi, 2014. "The deterrent effect of anti-cartel enforcement: A tale of two tails," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2014-06v2, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    17. Ferrés, Daniel & Ormazabal, Gaizka & Povel, Paul & Sertsios, Giorgo, 2021. "Capital structure under collusion," Journal of Financial Intermediation, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    18. Khemla Prishnee Armoogum & Stephen Davies & Franco Mariuzzo, 2017. "Cartel enforcement and deterrence over the life of a Competition Authority," Working Paper series, University of East Anglia, Centre for Competition Policy (CCP) 2017-04, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK..
    19. Schinkel, Maarten Pieter & Tuinstra, Jan, 2006. "Imperfect competition law enforcement," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1267-1297, November.
    20. Jihyun Park & Juhyun Lee & Suneung Ahn, 2018. "Bayesian Approach for Estimating the Probability of Cartel Penalization under the Leniency Program," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.

    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:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/676070. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE .

    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.