IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/hasite/0027.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The EU Leniency Programme and Recidivism

Author

Abstract

The EU Leniency Programme (LP) aims to encourage the dissolution of existing cartels and the deterrence of future cartels, through spontaneous reporting and/or significant cooperation by cartel members during an investigation. However, the European Commission guidelines are rather vague in terms of the factors that influence the granting and scale of fine reductions. As expected, the results shown that the first reporting or cooperating firm receives generous fine reductions. More importantly, there is some evidence that firms can “learn how to play the leniency game”, either learning how to cheat or how to report, as the reductions given to multiple o ffenders (and their cartel partners) are substantially higher. These results have an ambiguous impact on firms’ incentives and major implications for policy making.

Suggested Citation

  • Marvao, Catarina, 2014. "The EU Leniency Programme and Recidivism," SITE Working Paper Series 27, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hhs:hasite:0027
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://swopec.hhs.se/hasite/papers/hasite0027.pdf
    File Function: Complete Rendering
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Zhijun Chen & Patrick Rey, 2013. "On the Design of Leniency Programs," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 917-957.
    2. 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.
    3. Joseph E. Harrington, 2008. "Optimal Corporate Leniency Programs," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 56(2), pages 215-246, June.
    4. Gärtner, D.L. & Zhou, J., 2012. "Delays in Leniency Application : Is There Really a Race to the Enforcer’s Door?," Discussion Paper 2012-044, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
    5. Asker, John, 2010. "Leniency and post-cartel market conduct: Preliminary evidence from parcel tanker shipping," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 407-414, July.
    6. Joan Ramon Borrell & Juan Luis Jiménez, 2008. "The drivers of antitrust effectiveness," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 185(2), pages 69-88, July.
    7. Martin Carree & Andrea Günster & Maarten Schinkel, 2010. "European Antitrust Policy 1957–2004: An Analysis of Commission Decisions," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 36(2), pages 97-131, March.
    8. John M. Connor, 2010. "Recidivism Revealed: Private International Cartels 1990-2009," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 6.
    9. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    10. Berinde Mihai, 2008. "Cartels – Between Theory, Leniency Policy And Fines," Annals of Faculty of Economics, University of Oradea, Faculty of Economics, vol. 1(1), pages 549-552, May.
    11. Klein, Gordon J., 2010. "Cartel destabilization and leniency programs: Empirical evidence," ZEW Discussion Papers 10-107, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    12. Nathan H. Miller, 2009. "Strategic Leniency and Cartel Enforcement," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(3), pages 750-768, June.
    13. Margaret C. Levenstein & Valerie Y. Suslow, 2011. "Breaking Up Is Hard to Do: Determinants of Cartel Duration," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(2), pages 455-492.
    14. Brenner, Steffen, 2009. "An empirical study of the European corporate leniency program," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 639-645, November.
    15. Harold Houba & Evgenia Motchenkova & Quan Wen, 2008. "Maximal Cartel Pricing and Leniency Programs," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 08-120/1, Tinbergen Institute.
    16. Gyuzel Yusupova, 2013. "Leniency program and cartel deterrence in Russia: effects assessment," HSE Working papers WP BRP 06/PA/2013, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    17. Oana DOMINTE & Daniela ŞERBAN & Alina Mihaela DIMA, 2013. "Cartels in EU: study on the effectiveness of leniency policy," Management & Marketing, Economic Publishing House, vol. 8(3), Autumn.
    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. Auriol, Emmanuelle & Søreide, Tina, 2017. "An economic analysis of debarment," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 36-49.
    2. 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.
    3. Robert M. Feinberg, 2016. "Cartel Stability: Determinants and International Evidence," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 48(4), pages 357-359, June.
    4. Yannis Katsoulacos & Evgenia Motchenkova & David Ulph, 2023. "Measuring the effectiveness of anti‐cartel interventions in the shadow of recidivism," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 44(4), pages 2393-2407, 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. Catarina Marvão, 2016. "The EU Leniency Programme and Recidivism," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 48(1), pages 1-27, February.
    2. Marvão, Catarina, 2014. "Heterogeneous Penalties and Private Information," Konkurrensverket Working Paper Series in Law and Economics 2014:1, Konkurrensverket (Swedish Competition Authority).
    3. Marvao, Catarina, 2014. "Heterogeneous Penalties and Private Information," SITE Working Paper Series 29, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics.
    4. Catarina Marvão & Giancarlo Spagnolo, 2018. "Cartels and leniency: Taking stock of what we learnt," Chapters, in: Luis C. Corchón & Marco A. Marini (ed.), Handbook of Game Theory and Industrial Organization, Volume II, chapter 4, pages 57-90, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    5. Jun Zhou, 2016. "The dynamics of leniency application and the knock-on effect of cartel enforcement," Working Papers 13042, Bruegel.
    6. Jochem, Annabelle & Parrotta, Pierpaolo & Valletta, Giacomo, 2020. "The impact of the 2002 reform of the EU leniency program on cartel outcomes," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    7. Jun Zhou, 2016. "The Rise and Fall of Cartels with Multi-market Colluders," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 48(4), pages 381-403, June.
    8. Emons, Winand, 2020. "The effectiveness of leniency programs when firms choose the degree of collusion," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    9. 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.
    10. Joan-Ramon Borrell & Carmen García & Juan Luis Jiménez & José Manuel Ordóñez-de-Haro, 2022. ""Cartel destabilization effect of leniency programs"," IREA Working Papers 202213, University of Barcelona, Research Institute of Applied Economics, revised Sep 2022.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Isogai, Shigeki & Shen, Chaohai, 2023. "Multiproduct firm’s reputation and leniency program in multimarket collusion," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    14. Perrotta Berlin, Maria & Spagnolo, Giancarlo & Qin, Bei, 2015. "Leniency, Asymmetric Punishment and Corruption: Evidence from China," SITE Working Paper Series 34, Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm Institute of Transition Economics, revised 25 May 2017.
    15. Sven Heim & Kai Hhschelrath & Ulrich Laitenberger & Yossi Spiegel, 2017. "Minority Share Acquisitions and Collusion: Evidence from the Introduction of National Leniency Programs," Working Papers hal-01952937, HAL.
    16. 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.
    17. Lucas Campio Pinha & Marcelo José Braga, 2019. "Evaluating the effectiveness of the Brazilian Leniency Program," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 39(3), pages 1860-1869.
    18. 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.
    19. Houba Harold & Motchenkova Evgenia & Wen Quan, 2015. "The Effects of Leniency on Cartel Pricing," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 15(2), pages 351-389, July.
    20. Joseph E. Harrington Jr. & Myong-Hun Chang, 2015. "When Can We Expect a Corporate Leniency Program to Result in Fewer Cartels?," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 58(2), pages 417-449.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Cartels; competition policy; Leniency Programme; self-reporting;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • K42 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Illegal Behavior and the Enforcement of Law
    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General
    • L51 - Industrial Organization - - Regulation and Industrial Policy - - - Economics of Regulation

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hhs:hasite:0027. 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: Dominick Nilsson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sihhsse.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.