Private enforcement, corruption, and antitrust design

被引:0
作者
Grajzl, Peter [1 ,2 ]
Baniak, Andrzej [3 ]
机构
[1] Washington & Lee Univ, Williams Sch Commerce Econ & Polit, Dept Econ, 204 West Washington St, Lexington, VA 24450 USA
[2] CESifo Munich, Munich, Germany
[3] Cent European Univ, Dept Econ, Nador U 9, H-1051 Budapest, Hungary
关键词
Antitrust; Corruption; Private enforcement; Public enforcement; Institutional design; ALLOCATION EFFICIENCY; LAW-ENFORCEMENT; FIRMS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jce.2017.08.002
中图分类号
F [经济];
学科分类号
02 ;
摘要
We examine how the rationale for enabling versus precluding private antitrust enforcement depends on whether antitrust enforcement is corruption-free or plagued by corruption. Corruption in courts affects the incentives to bring forth private antitrust lawsuits. This, in turn, along with corruption in antitrust agency enforcement, alters the incentives to commit antitrust violations. The social welfare effect of enabling private antitrust enforcement in the presence of corruption depends on whether corrupt officials in the ensuing bribery contests favor a particular firm and if so which one and to what extent. Under some circumstances, corruption actually increases the social desirability of private antitrust enforcement relative to the no-corruption scenario. Our analysis highlights that the effects of a given legal arrangement for antitrust enforcement critically depend on the corruption environment and, thus, that the appropriate design of antitrust institutions is context-specific. (C) 2017 Association for Comparative Economic Studies. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:284 / 307
页数:24
相关论文
共 51 条
[1]   THE EFFECT OF EU ANTITRUST INVESTIGATIONS AND FINES ON A FIRM'S VALUATION [J].
Aguzzoni, Luca ;
Langus, Gregor ;
Motta, Massimo .
JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, 2013, 61 (02) :290-338
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2010, LOYOLA U CHICAGO LAW
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2010, LOYOLA U CHICAGO LAW
[4]   The case for antitrust enforcement [J].
Baker, JB .
JOURNAL OF ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVES, 2003, 17 (04) :27-50
[5]  
Baye MR, 1996, ECON THEORY, V8, P291, DOI 10.1007/s001990050092
[6]   CRIME AND PUNISHMENT - ECONOMIC APPROACH [J].
BECKER, GS .
JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 1968, 76 (02) :169-217
[7]   The transplant effect [J].
Berkowitz, D ;
Pistor, K ;
Richard, JF .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE LAW, 2003, 51 (01) :163-203
[8]   THE PROFITABILITY OF PRICE FIXING - EVIDENCE FROM STOCK-MARKET REACTION TO FEDERAL INDICTMENTS [J].
BOSCH, JC ;
ECKARD, EW .
REVIEW OF ECONOMICS AND STATISTICS, 1991, 73 (02) :309-317
[9]   PRIVATE ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT IN THE PRESENCE OF PRE-TRIAL BARGAINING [J].
Bourjade, Sylvain ;
Rey, Patrick ;
Seabright, Paul .
JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, 2009, 57 (03) :372-409
[10]   Stand-alone private antitrust damages: (how) should competition authorities react? [J].
Calcagno, Claudio .
EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF LAW AND ECONOMICS, 2012, 34 (02) :365-389