Collusive behavior under a leniency program

We investigate how a leniency program, which is a policy that gives reduced penalties to colluding firms that cooperate with investigations of the Antitrust Authority, affects firms’ collusive behavior. Using a model of quantity competition, we show that an amnesty to the second or later candidates of a leniency program is of no use if colluding firms can choose the most profitable collusion. Because a leniency program is a general rule that is applied to various markets in a country, our result implies that the design of a leniency program depends on which kinds of market structure are prevalent in the country.     

Are leniency programs too generous?

I present a simple model of collusion in which the competition authority offers leniency rates contingent on the number of firms that report information. The optimal leniency policy involves what I refer to as a single informant rule—that is, leniency should be given only when a single firm reports information. The single informant rule allows to increase expected sanctions compared to the first informant rule, which overall improves cartel deterrence.     

The Prodigal Corporation: an Analysis on the Effectiveness of the ACCC's Immunity Policy for Cartel Conduct

We examine the impact of the ACCC's leniency policy (Immunity Policy) on cartel stability. The policy, by reducing the fines of the first cartel members who cooperate with competition authorities, can act to deter collusion. However, we find that care is needed in how a leniency policy is implemented. It is possible that the leniency policy can make collusion easier to sustain than in its absence. Further, the ACCC's Cooperation Policy, which applies to all parties who assist the Commission with an investigation, can act to undermine the effectiveness of the leniency policy.     

Leniency policies and illegal transactions

We study the consequences of leniency—reduced legal sanctions for wrongdoers who spontaneously self-report to law enforcers—on sequential, bilateral, illegal transactions, such as corruption, manager–auditor collusion, or drug deals. It is known that leniency helps deterring illegal relationships sustained by repeated interaction. Here we find that—when not properly designed—leniency may simultaneously provide an effective governance mechanism for occasional sequential illegal transactions that would not be feasible in its absence.     

Tacit collusion with imperfect monitoring in the Canadian manufacturing industry: an empirical study

This article undertakes a cross-sectoral analysis of a salient empirical implication of the model of tacit collusion advanced by Abreu, Pearce, and Stachetti (1986). Specifically, we assess the prevalence of a first-order Markovian process for alternating between price wars and collusive periods through nonparametric tests. The analysis focuses on 30 different industries in Canada. The evidence provides weak support for optimal collusion in one industry, which is consistent with the idea that such kind of collusive arrangements is unusual, or, if collusion is all too common, that price wars as deviations from collusion are rare.     

Blowing the Whistle

Leniency clauses, offering cartelists legal immunity if they blow the whistle on each other, is a recent anti-trust innovation. The authorities wish to thwart cartels and promote competition. This effect is not evident, however; whistle-blowing may enforce trust and collusion by providing a tool for cartelists to punish each other. We examine the impact of leniency law, and other rules, experimentally.     

Endogenous rationing,price dispersion and collusion in capacity constrained supergames

This paper examines the feasibility of collusion in capacity constrained duopoly supergames. In each period firms simultaneously set a price–quantity pair specifying the price for the period and the maximum quantity the firm is willing to sell at this price. Under price–quantity competition firms are able to ration their output below capacity. For a wide range of capacity pairs, the equilibrium path providing the smaller firm with its highest stationary perfect equilibrium payoff requires that it undercut its rival’s price and ration demand. Furthermore, for some capacities and discount factors supporting security level punishments, price shading and rationing arise everywhere on the set of stationary perfect equilibrium paths yielding (constrained) Pareto optimal payoffs. That is, price shading may not only be consistent with optimal collusion, it may be a requirement of optimal collusion.     

Strictness of leniency programs and asymmetric punishment effect

We analyze the impact of leniency programs on the behavior of firms participating in illegal cartel agreements in a two-stage repeated game model. Our approach takes into account asymmetric punishment effect and allows to discuss the design of leniency programs in the setting with asymmetries. The main contribution of the paper is that we consider heterogeneous firms. This heterogeneity results in additional costs in case of disclosure of the cartel, which are caused by asymmetric punishments. Next, following current antitrust rules, we analyze effects of the strictness of leniency programs, which reflects the likelihood of getting a complete exemption from fine even in case many firms self-report simultaneously. Our main conclusion is that leniency programs work better for small companies, since a lower rate of law enforcement is needed in order to induce self-reporting by smaller firms, while big firms are less likely to start a cartel in the first place given the possibility of self-reporting in future. Finally, we analyze optimal enforcement strategies of the antitrust authority and conclude that the authority with limited resources should implement more generous leniency rules the more cartelized the economy is.     

Collusion and Renegotiation in a Principal–Supervisor–Agent Relationship

We describe a principal–supervisor–agent relationship in which agent and supervisor may collude. To prevent collusion, the principal may contract on a noisy signal which is correlated with the occurrence of collusion. When the signal is informative enough, the principal uses it and no collusion occurs in equilibrium. These contracts, however, are ex post inefficient and are only optimal if the principal can commit not to renegotiate. With renegotiation it is never optimal for the principal to prevent collusion and, at the same time, condition contracts on the signal. In fact, when the signal is informative enough collusion occurs in equilibrium.     

Costly horizontal differentiation

We study the effect of quadratic differentiation costs in the Hotelling model of endogenous product differentiation. The equilibrium location choices are found to depend on the magnitude of the differentiation costs (relatively to the transportation costs supported by consumers). When the differentiation costs are low, there is maximum differentiation. When they are high, there is partial differentiation, with a degree of differentiation that decreases with the differentiation costs. In any case, the socially optimal degree of differentiation is always lower than the equilibrium level. We also study the case of collusion between firms. If firms can combine locations but not prices, they locate asymmetrically when differentiation costs are high and choose maximum differentiation when they are low. When collusion extends to price setting, there is partial differentiation.     

Mergers,cartels and leniency programs: The role of capital stocks

This paper examines the impact of mergers on collusion, depending on the endowment of capital assets among firms. We show that mergers render collusion easier to sustain when an asymmetric capital stock is combined with less-efficient insiders, due to more symmetric conditions and tighter incentive constraints. Moreover, the model allows us to determine an optimal threshold of asymmetry between insiders and outsiders such that mergers have pro-competitive effects; we compare this value with that which would generate perfect symmetry between firms after the merger.     

Heterogeneous effects of merit scholarships: do program features matter?

This paper examines the role of program features in determining the effectiveness of merit scholarships on educational outcomes using data from the 2009 to 2014 American Community Survey. Exploiting the variation in the timing of program adoption as well as program features across states, I find that leniency of academic requirements for initial eligibility largely contributes to program effects on associate’s degree completion, whereas generosity of scholarship amount significantly increases college attendance and bachelor’s degree completion. The estimates also indicate that lower requirements for scholarship renewal appear to positively affect the likelihood of completing a degree in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields (STEM). The findings suggest that leniency and generosity are important determinants of program effectiveness on educational outcomes. It is thus relevant to take program features into account when designing merit scholarships.     

Optimal collusion under cost asymmetry

Cost asymmetry is generally thought to hinder collusion because a more efficient firm has both more to gain from deviations and less to fear from retaliation than less efficient firms. Our paper reexamines this conventional wisdom and characterizes optimal collusion without any prior restriction on the class of strategies. We stress that firms can credibly agree on retaliation schemes that maximally punish even the most efficient firm. This implies that whenever collusion is sustainable under cost symmetry, some collusion is also sustainable under cost asymmetry; efficient collusion, however, remains more difficult to sustain when costs are asymmetric. Finally, we show that in the presence of side payments cost asymmetry facilitates collusion.     

Efficient collusion in optimal auctions

We study collusion in an IPV auction with binary type spaces. Collusion is organized by a third party that can manipulate participation decisions. We characterize the optimal response of the seller to different threats of collusion among the bidders. We show that, contrary to the prevailing view that asymmetric information imposes transaction costs in side contracting, collusion in the optimal auction is efficient when the third party can implement monetary transfers as well as when it can implement monetary transfers and reallocations of the good. The threat of non-participation in the auction by a subset of bidders is crucial in constraining the seller's profit.     

Can industry regulators learn collusion structures from information-efficient asset markets?

This note combines a dynamic industrial organization model, in which an industry is subject to exogenous processes of market-size and collusion structure, with a consumption-based asset pricing model for the shares in the industry’s firms. Three main findings emerge for our model under the assumption of information-efficient asset markets. First, the volatility of a firm’s share price is exclusively driven by the volatility of the industry’s market-size. Second, the volatility of a firm’s price-dividend ratio is exclusively driven by the volatility of the industry’s collusion structure whereby high (resp. low) ratios indicate less (resp. more) collusion. Third, for non-volatile collusion structures the price-dividend ratio is constant across different collusion structures.     

发展中国家普遍服务义务的经济分析

本文构建一个简单的非对称信息模型,分析发展中国家特定的普遍服务问题。在模型中,政府与垄断企业的非对称信息产生于在农村提供服务的边际成本,最优普遍服务政策可以用两种规制手段即资费和网络投资来实现。本文对区别定价和统一定价两种情形进行了对比分析,得出的结论是：在实施区别定价时,与完全信息相比,不完全信息将提高农村地区的资费水平,并且减小相应的网络覆盖面积;而在实施统一定价时,农村地区的定价可能降低,但这是以网络覆盖面积的减小为代价。模型结果还表明,合谋的成胁会弱化企业的激励。有意思的是,在这两种定价机制下,企业和纳税人这两种不同的利益集团均有同规制者合谋的动机。实际上,纳税人利益集团的存在,强化了规制者和企业之间的防止合谋约束,并且为了减少规制者同纳税人利益集团的合谋收益,即使规制者具有高成本信息,也会使配置结果扭曲。     

Legal Principles in Antitrust Enforcement

We study antitrust enforcement that aims to channel price‐fixing incentives of cartels through setting fine schedules and detection levels. Fines obey legal principles, such as the punishment should fit the crime, proportionality, bankruptcy considerations, and minimum fines. Bankruptcy considerations limit maximum fines, ensure abnormal cartel profits, and impose a challenge for optimal antitrust enforcement. We derive the fine schedule and detection level that are constrained‐optimal under legal principles and sustainability of cartel prices. This fine schedule lies below the maximum fine, makes collusion on lower prices more attractive than on higher prices, and, hence, relates to the body of literature on marginal deterrence.     

Collusion and discrimination in organizations

In a principal-multi-agent setting we investigate how optimal contracts should be modified under relative performance evaluation when agents collude. Agents may write side-contracts, which are not contingent on their effort choices but indirectly control them through side-transfers. We show that the optimal collusion-proof contract is to introduce a “discriminatory policy” in the sense that the wage schemes offered to agents depend on their identities even if they are identical with respect to productive abilities. Such discriminatory wage schemes explain the organizational strategy of “divide and conquer” as an optimal response to collusion.     

差异化产品价格战的产生与扩散机制分析

本文基于消费者的"0-1"购买特征和产品的纵向差异化特征,建立了一个新的价格战模型。通过应用数学证明和数值模拟的方法发现:(1)合谋体系、背叛体系以及价格战体系的均衡结果均与需求冲击无关;(2)差异化产品厂商的背叛动机以及产品链条的合谋稳定性也与需求冲击无关;(3)产品的差异化程度是影响合谋稳定性的重要因素,差异化程度越大,合谋越稳定;(4)合谋集团对背叛厂商的惩罚策略存在着"误伤效应",这种效应在一定条件下能够自我抑制,表现为产品链条上的价格战和合谋共存,在其他条件下,这种效应不能自我抑制,价格战一旦发动就会迅速扩散到整个产品链条。     

Mechanism Design under Collusion and Uniform Transfers

We study mechanism design under collusion focusing on the transaction costs in coalition formation created by asymmetric information among agents. In our setting, the regulator is constrained to use uniform transfers and this generates room for collusion between the regulated firms. We first show that when the gains from collusion are smaller than a threshold, the firms fail to realize the gains because of transaction costs. When the gains are larger than the threshold, we characterize the optimal collusion‐proof mechanism. Finally, we show that when the regulator is constrained to use uniform transfers, the collusion‐proofness principle does not hold.