IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Protección de la Competencia en Chile: El Estado y Laboratorios Chile y Recalcine (1992-93)


  • Edgardo Barandiarán
  • Ricardo Paredes


In 1992, Laboratorios Chile and Recalcine, the two largest pharmaceutical companies in Chile with a share of 82% of the domestic markets for generic products, were accused of collusion. The paper analyzes the process and the evidence considered by the Antitrust Commissions to assess the extent to which the Chilean system has been able to provide seguridad jurídica for market competition. Albeit economic models were readily available to argue the case, the process failed to generate the evidence necessary to apply them properly. The opposite decisions of the two Commissions reflected this failure and differences in the standards of proof. The analysis is useful, however, to understand the behavior and performance of the Chilean system of competition law.

Suggested Citation

  • Edgardo Barandiarán & Ricardo Paredes, 2002. "Protección de la Competencia en Chile: El Estado y Laboratorios Chile y Recalcine (1992-93)," Documentos de Trabajo 222, Instituto de Economia. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile..
  • Handle: RePEc:ioe:doctra:222

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Demougin, Dominique & Fluet, Claude, 2006. "Preponderance of evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(4), pages 963-976, May.
    2. F. M. Scherer, 1993. "Pricing, Profits, and Technological Progress in the Pharmaceutical Industry," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 7(3), pages 97-115, Summer.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item


    Antitrust; collusion;

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • K41 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Litigation Process


    Access and download statistics


    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:ioe:doctra:222. 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: (Jaime Casassus). General contact details of provider: .

    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 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.

    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.