Antitrust policy and price collusion : public agencies vs delegation
This paper investigates the effectiveness of antitrust policy in fighting horizontal collusion under different regimes of policy implementation. We consider two regimes : a public agency regime, where an antitrust authority is in charge of competition policy, and a "delegation" regime, where the policy is chosen by consumers. In both regimes the policy is implemented under discretion. The analysis shows that delegation dominates, both in case of complete and imperfect information about production costs, the public agency regime because consumers credibly start off an higher level of investigation activity than the public agency. This resuit implies that the public agency will fight the cases involving "relevant" anti-competitive activities, while consumers will act also against "minor" violations. The combination of the two regimes yields an higher welfare than having only a public agency in charge of competition policy, because consumers can partially relax the agency's limited resources constraint.
|Date of creation:||01 Jun 2004|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Place Montesquieu 3, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve (Belgium)|
Fax: +32 10473945
Web page: http://www.uclouvain.be/ires
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Reinganum, Jennifer F & Wilde, Louis L, 1986. "Equilibrium Verification and Reporting Policies in a Model of Tax Compliance," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 27(3), pages 739-60, October.
- Banks, Jeffrey S, 1992. "Monopoly Pricing and Regulatory Oversight," Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(1), pages 203-33, Spring.
- Mailath George J. & Okuno-Fujiwara Masahiro & Postlewaite Andrew, 1993. "Belief-Based Refinements in Signalling Games," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 60(2), pages 241-276, August.
- James Andreoni & Brian Erard & Jonathan Feinstein, 1998.
Journal of Economic Literature,
American Economic Association, vol. 36(2), pages 818-860, June.
- Christian Schultz, 1998.
"Monetary Policy, Delegation and Polarization,"
98-17, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
- Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 1993. "A Theory of Incentives in Procurement and Regulation," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262121743.
- 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 429-45, June.
- Salant, Stephen W, 1987. "Treble Damage Awards in Private Lawsuits for Price Fixing," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 95(6), pages 1326-36, December.
- Block, Michael K & Feinstein, Jonathan S, 1986. "The Spillover Effect of Antitrust Enforcement," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(1), pages 122-31, February.
- 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.
- Motta, Massimo & Polo, Michele, 2003.
"Leniency programs and cartel prosecution,"
International Journal of Industrial Organization,
Elsevier, vol. 21(3), pages 347-379, March.
- Massimo Motta & Michele Polo, . "Leniency Programs and Cartel Prosecution," Working Papers 150, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
- Motta, M. & Polo, M., 1999. "Leniency Programs and Cartel Prosecution," Economics Working Papers eco99/23, European University Institute.
- Motta, Massimo & Polo, Michele, 2000. "Leniency Programs and Cartel Prosecution," CEPR Discussion Papers 2349, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Besanko, David & Spulber, Daniel F, 1989. "Antitrust Enforcement under Asymmetric Information," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 99(396), pages 408-25, June.
- Thomas W. Ross, 1983.
"Winners and Losers under the Robinson-Patman Act,"
University of Chicago - George G. Stigler Center for Study of Economy and State
30, Chicago - Center for Study of Economy and State.
- Besanko, David & Spulber, Daniel F, 1989.
"Delegated Law Enforcement and Noncooperative Behavior,"
Journal of Law, Economics and Organization,
Oxford University Press, vol. 5(1), pages 25-52, Spring.
- Besanko, D. & Spulber, D.F., 1988. "Delegated Law Enforcement And Noncooperative Behavior," Papers m8820, Southern California - Department of Economics.
- Kenneth Rogoff, 1985. "The Optimal Degree of Commitment to an Intermediate Monetary Target," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 100(4), pages 1169-1189.
- Saïd Souam, 1997.
"Optimal Antitrust Policy Under Different Regimes of Fines,"
97-37, Centre de Recherche en Economie et Statistique.
- Souam, Said, 2001. "Optimal antitrust policy under different regimes of fines," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 19(1-2), pages 1-26, January.
- Saïd Souam, 1998. "Dissuasion de la collusion et efficacité de deux systèmes d'amendes," Revue Économique, Programme National Persée, vol. 49(3), pages 755-765.
- Besanko, David & Spulber, Daniel F, 1990. "Are Treble Damages Neutral? Sequential Equilibrium and Private Antitrust Enforcement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(4), pages 870-87, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ctl:louvre:2004021. 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: (Sebastien SCHILLINGS)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.