Trust, Leniency and Deterrence
نویسندگان
چکیده
منابع مشابه
Optimal Corporate Leniency Programs∗
This study characterizes the corporate leniency policy that minimizes the frequency with which collusion occurs. Though it can be optimal to provide only partial leniency, plausible sufficient conditions are provided whereby the antitrust authority should waive all penalties for the first firm to come forward. It is also shown that restrictions should be placed on when amnesty is awarded, thoug...
متن کاملLeniency Programs and Cartel Prosecution
We study the enforcement of competition policy against collusion under Leniency Programs, which give reduced ̄nes to ̄rms revealing information to the Antitrust Authority. Such programs give ̄rms an incentive to break collusion, but may also have a pro-collusive e®ect, since they decrease the expected cost of misbehaviour. We analyze the optimal policy under alternative rules and with homogeneo...
متن کاملUncertainty and entry deterrence*
We study a model where capacity installation by an incumbent firm serves to deter others from entering the industry. We argue that uncertainty about demand or costs forces the incumbent to choose a higher capacity level than it would under certainty. This higher level diminishes the attractiveness of deter rence (Proposition 1) and, therefore, the range of parameter values for which deterrence ...
متن کاملCartel Destabilization and Leniency Programs – Empirical Evidence
Leniency programs as a tool for cartel detection and cartel destabilization, have been implemented since the early nineties. Theoretical work has shown that leniency programs can be effective in enhancing cartel detection and deterrence, but these effects are not straightforward. It is even possible that there is an increase in the total number of cartels. Empirical evidence shows that the posi...
متن کاملTakeovers, Toeholds and Deterrence *
We consider a setting in which two potential buyers, one with a prior toehold and one without, compete in a takeover modelled as an ascending auction with participating costs. The toeholder is more aggressive during the takeover process because she is also a seller of her own shares. The non-toeholder anticipates this extra-aggressiveness of the toeholder. Thus, the non-toeholder is deterred fr...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: SSRN Electronic Journal
سال: 2014
ISSN: 1556-5068
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2469778