Agisilaou, Panayiotis (2012): Keep to sustain or keep to exploit? Why firms keep hard evidence.
Download (588kB) | Preview
We develop a model wherein collusive firms' decisions to keep or to destroy the hard evidence is endogenous. Unlike previous literature, we assume that the administration of the cartel crucially depends on the existence of the hard evidence. Within this framework, we explore the impact of a leniency program on whether firms' incentives are to destroy or to keep the hard evidence. Moreover, we examine firms' incentives to report or not to report the hard evidence to the antitrust authority. We show that firms may willfully keep the hard evidence, even if a leniency program is not available, in order to enhance the stability of the cartel. Additionally, we prove that firms are more inclined to keep the hard evidence when a leniency program is available. Finally, we demonstrate that firms are more likely to destroy the hard evidence when the collusive profits-fine ratio increases.
|Item Type:||MPRA Paper|
|Original Title:||Keep to sustain or keep to exploit? Why firms keep hard evidence|
|Keywords:||self-reporting, leniency program, hard evidence, collusion|
|Subjects:||K - Law and Economics > K4 - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior > K40 - General
K - Law and Economics > K2 - Regulation and Business Law > K21 - Antitrust Law
L - Industrial Organization > L4 - Antitrust Issues and Policies
L - Industrial Organization > L1 - Market Structure, Firm Strategy, and Market Performance
|Depositing User:||Panayiotis Agisilaou|
|Date Deposited:||29. May 2012 23:17|
|Last Modified:||26. Feb 2013 18:33|
Aubert, C., Rey, P., and Kovacic, W. (2006). The impact of leniency and whistle-blowing programs on cartels. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(6):1241�1266.
Bryant, P. and Eckard, E. (1991). Price �xing: The probability of getting caught. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 73(3):531�36.
Buccirossi, P. and Spagnolo, G. (2006). Leniency policies and illegal transactions. Journal of Public Economics, 90(6-7):1281�1297.
Combe, E., Monnier, C., and Legal, R. (2008). Cartels: The probability of getting caught in the european union. BEER paper n. 12.
Friedman, J. W. (1971). A non-cooperative equilibrium for supergames. Review of Economic Studies, 38(113):1�12.
Fudenberg, D. and Tirole, J. (1991). Game Theory. The MIT Press.
Harrington, J. (2008). Optimal corporate leniency programs. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 56(2):215�246.
Motchenkova, E. (2004). Effects of leniency programs on cartel stability. Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
Motta, M. and Polo, M. (2003). Leniency programs and cartel prosecution. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(3):347�379.
Ormosi, P. (2011). How big is a tip of the iceberg? A parsimonious way to estimate cartel detection rate. SSRN eLibrary.
Silbye, F. (2010). Asymmetric evidence and optimal leniency programs. In Topics in competitition policy: cartels, leniency and price discrimination, pages 41�67. University of Copenhagen.
Spagnolo, G. (2004). Divide et impera: Optimal deterrence mechanisms against cartels and organized crime. Econometric Society 2004 North American Winter Meetings, Econometric Society.
Spagnolo, G. (2008). Handbook of Antitrust Economics, chapter Leniency and Whistleblowers in Antitrust, pages 259�304. MIT Press.
Tirole, J. (1988). The Theory of Industrial Organization. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. 29