创业补贴下农民工寻租行为的博弈分析

在政府利好政策和创业补贴驱动下,理性的农民工创业者作为信息优势的一方,是否谎报或寻租会考虑自身的成本与效益。本文首先分析了农民工创业者和政府执行部门寻租的成本效益,接着构建了农民工创业者之间的博弈模型、农民工创业者与执行部门的双边寻租博弈模型以及加上领导监管部门的三方非合作博弈模型,然后通过农民工创业者的实证调查对研究结论进行了补充,最后提出了规范创业补贴分配秩序方面的政策建议。研究结果表明,当独立的两个农民工创业者进行"一级密封价格拍卖"的博弈时,如果他们都选择寻租,优惠政策和补贴将在双方之间随机地分配,最终单独的任意个农民工创业者寻租的贿金成本是寻租带来价值的一半。在没有第三方监督的情况下,不管农民工创业者以多少的概率选择谎报和寻租,政府执行部门都会接受寻租并发放补贴。当越多的农民工创业者参与寻租的行列中,政府执行部门因为接受寻租而得到更高的收益。为了维持资源的合理分配,领导监管部门进行监督时,农民工创业者和执行部门会以一定的概率选择是否寻租或设租,而加大惩罚力度会减少寻租行为的发生。     

利益集团博弈与管制均衡

在利益集团理论和寻租理论的框架下,管制机构的结构、管制者对管制权的争夺以及管制权所受到的法律约束,在供给层面上影响着管制制度。被管制者之间进入市场瓜分租金的博弈,在需求层面上影响着管制制度。管制者和被管制者之间的互动,合谋、收买,公共权力的寻租,则直接影响着管制制度的均衡。     

纵向差异产品下价格领导制对默契合谋的影响

价格领导制对合谋的作用机理一直是产业组织理论关注和争议的焦点.本文以纵向差异产品模型为基础,构建一个扩展的双寡头无限期重复博弈模型,首先求出竞争状态下价格领导制的均衡利润,其次利用纳什讨价还价解求出合谋下的企业利润,最后通过比较同时定价和价格领导制两种情形下企业维持合谋的激励,重点考察纵向差异产品下价格领导行为对默契合谋的作用机理.研究发现,如果企业可以采用价格领导制进行价格合谋,则无论是哪家企业作为价格领导者,价格领导制都极大降低了领导者背叛合谋的激励,增强了合谋的稳定性,尤其是在高质量产品企业作为合谋的价格领导者之时.对此,笔者建议反垄断执法机构关注企业的序贯提价行为,发现潜藏在其中的合谋行为.     

论农村土地征用中的寻租行为

本文指出,农村征地过程的地方政府是寻租者,它利用手中的强制性权力低成本剥夺农民的土地,然后以数十倍的价格将土地出售给开发商,地方政府从中抽走大量的租金;同时地方政府部门为了尽快的获得潜在租金,他们与开发商合谋分割租金,作者构造了一个讨价还价模型以进行深入讨论。通过作者证据揭示,地方政府及其分租者的行为在造成了低效率经济后果的同时,也造成了严重的社会后果。     

浅谈金融竞争与强化金融监管

一、金融监管的必要性 寻租行为的大量存在产生了金融监管的要求。在金融交易中，金融机构的腐败体现为利用资金配置权进行两类寻租行为。一是通过对企业配置信贷资金获得第一类寻租收入。这在金融监管当局的现场检查中体现为直接从信贷额度中扣除部分金额作为好处费；二是信贷配置上的定价权收入，这实际上是企业在获得贷款后为了维持长期信贷关系交易而支付的持续性成本。银行的寻租程度取决于改革进程中中央银行和财政对银行的转移支付和内控制度的相对力度比较，企业借款行为是在自筹资金和银行借款问进行的相对成本比较。     

多功能智能防拥堵装置

多功能防拥挤装置,尤其涉及一种智能防拥挤装置.目前,社会中没有专业用于防拥挤的装置,需要人工来维持现场秩序.例如博物馆、售票处等大型公共场所为了保障公共秩序,遇到人流高峰,现场情况很是混乱,需要大量工作人员进行维护,且效果不佳,经常发生插队、踩踏事件.针对上述问题,提供一种能有效防拥挤的全自动装置.     

基于博弈论的工程监理问题再分析

结合工程实际,通过博弈分析认为,由于项目业主有自己的代理人履行管理职能,且代理人的权力远远大于监理人,因而主动与施工单位合谋寻租的非监理人而是业主代理人;由于2002年版质量验收规范为质量管理的现实操作提供了巨大的弹性空间,同时监理人的经济利益受制于业主代理人,最终监理人的被动合谋使得业主、监理、施工三方代理人的有限度违规成为博弈均衡点。因而工程事故频发的根本原因并非监理人与承包商的合谋寻租,而现有针对监理的惩戒性制度和严格繁琐的签字手续也存在方向性错误。     

序列加成的可维持性与图书高价格

图书行业超高的价格和非均衡的纵向产业链利润分配,不仅恶化了产业经营绩效,而且降低了消费者的福利.图书高价格形成的内在机制是存在可维持的序列加成,而序列加成可维持性的原因是纵向的非竞争性市场结构.出版发行环节的行政垄断和促进上下游默契合谋的转售价格维持机制是序列加成可维持性和超高书价形成的根本原因.因此,打破行政垄断和消除合谋机制是反垄断的根本.     

国有企业外部人控制：—个寻租视角

国有企业的公共物品性导致国有企业蜕变为一个多重寻租网络。政府作为国有企业的外部控制人,借助政企不分、个人权力的无约束和责任体系弱化、多层委托与多重代理等体制性弊病的掩饰,与国有企业代理人合谋寻租,国有企业的"内部人控制"应运而生。可以说,国有企业若不存在"外部人控制","内部人控制"几乎不可能产生;国有企业若存在"外部人控制","内部人控制"便几乎一定会产生。"外部人控制"产生的必要前提是国有企业泛化为公共物品,而国有企业泛化为公共物品,必须具备以下条件:包括存在可供寻租的租金、存在制度性的寻租通道、存在租金和信息的传递系统。国有企业外部人控制具有极大的危害,主要表现为降低企业家的生产性努力水平和使得企业家行为寻租化。解决问题的关键在于进行产权改革,使产权得到清晰界定并得到有效保护,同时不会出现事后寻租的现象。     

国有企业外部人控制:一个寻租视角

国有企业的公共物品性导致国有企业蜕变为一个多重寻租网络.政府作为国有企业的外部控制人,借助政企不分、个人权力的无约束和责任体系弱化、多层委托与多重代理等体制性弊病的掩饰,与国有企业代理人合谋寻租,国有企业的"内部人控制"应运而生.可以说,国有企业若不存在"外部人控制","内部人控制"几乎不可能产生;国有企业若存在"外部人控制","内部人控制"便几乎一定会产生."外部人控制"产生的必要前提是国有企业泛化为公共物品,而国有企业泛化为公共物品,必须具备以下条件:包括存在可供寻租的租金、存在制度性的寻租通道、存在租金和信息的传递系统.国有企业外部人控制具有极大的危害,主要表现为降低企业家的生产性努力水平和使得企业家行为寻租化.解决问题的关键在于进行产权改革,使产权得到清晰界定并得到有效保护,同时不会出现事后寻租的现象.     

Price collusion with free entry: the parasitic competition

The market equilibrium that is generated in the presence of both price collusion and free entry is analyzed taking under consideration the case of a homogeneous product and the case of differentiated products. The outcomes of this market regime are compared with those of other regimes, including competition (or monopolistic competition), monopoly, fixed price with collusive entry limitation. Some welfare implications of the market regime of price collusion with free entry are examined, with respect to the maximum social welfare allocation and the allocations of other market regimes, so to highlight the inefficiency of price collusion with free entry. The number of producers results to be the maximum number of firms that can produce without incurring into losses. Therefore, social distress is caused by a displacement from the price collusion equilibrium with free entry. Its defence can thus be considered in reference to the desirability of social goals that are in contradiction with economic efficiency.     

Product differentiation,price discrimination and collusion

The existing literature which analyses the relationship between the product differentiation degree and the sustainability of a collusive agreement on price assumes that firms cannot price discriminate, and concludes that there is a negative relationship between the product differentiation degree and the critical discount factor. This paper, in contrast, assumes that firms are able to price discriminate. Within the Hotelling framework, three different collusive schemes are studied: perfect collusion on discriminatory prices; perfect collusion on a uniform price; collusion not to discriminate. We obtain that the critical discount factor of the first and the third collusive scheme does not depend on the product differentiation degree, while the critical discount factor of the second collusive scheme depends positively on the product differentiation degree. Moreover, we show that imperfect collusion is more difficult to sustain than perfect collusion.     

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.     

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。     

A theory of collusion with partial mutual understanding

Unlawful collusion is when firms have a mutual understanding to coordinate their behavior for the purpose of achieving a supracompetitive outcome. Given the legal focus on mutual beliefs, this paper explores the role of mutual beliefs in producing collusion. Focusing on price leadership, firms are assumed to commonly believe that price increases will be at least matched but lack any shared understanding about who will lead, when they will, and at what prices. Sufficient conditions are derived which ensure that supracompetitive prices emerge. However, price is bounded below the maximal equilibrium price.     

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.     

Does R&D cooperation facilitate price collusion? An experiment

We examine in a laboratory experiment whether R&D cooperation facilitates tacit price collusion. For two scenarios of technological spillovers, a baseline treatment without binding contract possibilities and a contract treatment where it is possible to credibly commit to an R&D contract, are run. We find that the degree of price collusion in the contract treatments is significantly higher in periods where R&D contracts are made than in periods without contracts, and than in the baseline treatments.     

Market collusion and the politics of protection

This paper investigates the relationship between trade and competition policy within a model where market collusion and protectionist lobbying are themselves related. Collusion and lobbying are modeled as joint products of the same collective effort of firms. In equilibrium, firms cannot achieve greater cooperation in one dimension without reducing it in the other. A trade agreement that limits the effectiveness of lobbying may cause firms to increase market collusion, thereby increasing the domestic price. Thus, international trade agreements may run counter to the goals of competition policy. On the other side, a more restrictive competition policy is shown to either reduce the domestic price or reduce import protection. Thus, competition policy tends to promote trade policy goals. The reason is that restrictive competition policy undermines collusion at the source—it decreases the per-firm benefit to collusion relative to the gains from deviating—reducing firm cooperation in both dimensions.     

Cartel sustainability with vertical product differentiation: Price versus quantity competition

In the context of a vertically differentiated duopoly, we analyse the influence of the degree of differentiation on cartel sustainability, under both price and quantity competition. We find that, under both Bertrand and Cournot competition, the effect of vertical product differentiation on sustainability of the collusive equilibrium is unclear. It is shown that, given a degree of differentiation, price collusion is more sustainable than quantity collusion.     

算法合谋的反垄断规制及工具创新研究

在数字经济领域,数字商务企业采用算法定价会明显提高合谋的可能性和可实施性,具有较大的价格合谋风险,因而成为反垄断法关注的重点。学理上,尚待明确的问题有:算法定价促进合谋的内在机理和类型化机制;如何创新反垄断执法体制以有效规制自主学习算法;在反垄断事后执法无效情况下,是否需要以及如何实行事前规制等。研究表明:算法合谋的反垄断规制宜坚持分类治理原则,采取事后反垄断禁止为主并辅之以事前规制的政策组合,反垄断政策工具创新应主要针对自主学习算法合谋。算法合谋反垄断规制政策需重新界定构成非法合谋的"协议"要件,明确当事企业的主体责任,重在采取以"软执法"为主的反垄断执法体制。事前规制政策应坚持"基于设计来遵守法律"的原则,强化算法审查机制和审查能力建设,并将提升算法透明度和可问责性作为重点。