Managerial Effort Incentives and Market Collusion
We investigate the interactions between managers’ incentives to collude or compete, and incentives to exert effort. A manager privately chooses the competitive strategy of the firm, and his own effort to improve productivity; He may substitute collusion to effort to increase profits. High profit targets — i.e., strong effort incentives — make participating in a cartel more attractive. To answer this double moral hazard, owners may have to give the manager information rents, and to choose inefficient effort levels. This affects cartel sustainability and profitability. Because of reduced internal efficiency, welfare losses may arise even when the industry remains competitive. Antitrust policy has a novel value, specifically thanks to individual sanctions: They foster internal efficiency in competing firms while worsening it in cartelized firms. This improves both efficiency under competition and cartel deterrence. Individual fines are thus more beneficial than corporate fines; criminal sanctions are even more effective. Last, individual leniency programs have ambiguous effects, even when not used in equilibrium.
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.:
- Cécile Aubert & Patrick Rey & William Kovacic, 2006.
"The Impact of Leniency and Whistle-blowing Programs on Cartels,"
- Aubert, Cecile & Rey, Patrick & Kovacic, William E., 2006. "The impact of leniency and whistle-blowing programs on cartels," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 24(6), pages 1241-1266, November.
- Cécile Aubert, 2005. "The Impact of Leniency and Whistle-blowing Programs on Cartels," Post-Print hal-00278558, HAL.
- Cécile Aubert, 2005. "The Impact of Leniency and Whistle-blowing Programs on Cartels," Post-Print hal-00278581, HAL.
- Joseph E. Harrington, 2005.
"Optimal Cartel Pricing In The Presence Of An Antitrust Authority,"
International Economic Review,
Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 46(1), pages 145-169, 02.
- Joseph E Harrington, 2001. "Optimal Cartel Pricing in the Presence of an Antitrust Authority," Economics Working Paper Archive 460, The Johns Hopkins University,Department of Economics, revised Jul 2002.
- Dan Bernhardt & Chris Chambers, "undated".
"Profit Sharing (with workers) Facilitates Collusion (among firms),"
Wallis Working Papers
WP22, University of Rochester - Wallis Institute of Political Economy.
- Dan Bernhardt & Christopher P. Chambers, 2006. "Profit sharing (with workers) facilitates collusion (among firms)," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(3), pages 483-502, 09.
- Levenstein, Margaret & Suslow, Valerie Y. & Oswald, Lynda J., 2003. "Contemporary International Cartels And Developing Countries: Economic Effects And Implications For Competition Policy," Working Papers 14590, International Agricultural Trade Research Consortium.
- Zhijun, 2008. "Cartel Organization and Antitrust Enforcement," Working Papers 08-21, Centre for Competition Policy, University of East Anglia.
- repec:dau:papers:123456789/13637 is not listed on IDEAS
- Klaus M. Schmidt, 1997. "Managerial Incentives and Product Market Competition," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 64(2), pages 191-213.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tse:wpaper:22250. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.