, Volume 38, Issue 3, pp 389–415 | Cite as

Empirical methods in the analysis of collusion

  • Johannes PahaEmail author
Original Paper


Regression methods are commonly used in competition lawsuits for, e.g., determining overcharges in price-fixing cases. Technical evaluations of these methods’ pros and cons are not necessarily intuitive. Appraisals that are based on case studies are descriptive but need not be universally valid. This paper opens up the black box called econometrics for competition cases. This is done by complementing theoretical arguments with estimation results. These results are obtained for data that is generated by a simulation-model of a collusive industry. Using such data leaves little room for debate about the quality of these methods because estimates of, e.g., overcharges can be compared to their true underlying values. This analysis provides arguments for demonstrating that thoroughly conducted econometric analyses yield better results than simple techniques such as before-and-after comparisons.


Collusion Empirical methods Industry simulation 

JEL classification

C51 D43 K21 L41 



I would like to thank Oliver Budzinski, Henning Fischer, Georg Götz, Maarten Janssen, Peter Winker, my colleagues in Giessen, and the participants of the 35th Hohenheimer Oberseminar for their valuable comments on this paper.


  1. Baker JB (1999) Empirical methods in antitrust litigation: review and critique. Am Law Econ Rev 1(1/2):386–435Google Scholar
  2. Chow GC (1960) Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica 28(3):591–605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Clark E, Hughes M, Wirth D (2004) Study on the conditions of claims for damages in case of infringement of EC competition rules.
  4. Connor JM (2008) Forensic economics: an introduction with special emphasis on price fixing. J Compet Law Econ 4(1):31–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Connor JM, Lande RH (2008) Cartel overcharges and optimal cartel fines. In: Issues in competition law and policy. ABA section of antitrust law. ABA Book Publishing, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  6. Directorate General Competition (2010) Best practices for the submission of economic evidence and data collection in cases concerning the application of articles 101 and 102 TFEU and in merger cases.
  7. Fershtman C, Pakes A (2000) A dynamic oligopoly with collusion and price wars. Rand J Econ 31(2):207–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Finkelstein MO, Levenbach H (1983) Regression estimates of damages in price-fixing cases. Law Contemp Probl 46(4):145–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Friedman JW (1971) A non-cooperative equilibrium for supergames. Rev Econ Stud 38(113):1–12Google Scholar
  10. Harrington JE (2008) Detecting cartels. In: Buccirossi P (ed) Handbook of antitrust economics. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  11. Hausmann WJ (1984) Cheap coals or limitation of the vend? The London coal trade, 1770–1845. J Econ Hist 44(2):321–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Heij C, de Boer P, Franses PH, Kloek T, van Dijk HK (2004) Econometric methods with applications in business and economics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Monopolkommission (2010) Mehr Wettbewerb, wenig Ausnahmen. Achtzehntes Hauptgutachten der Monopolkommission gemäß § 44 Abs. 1 Satz 1 GWB.
  14. Oxera (2009) Quantifying antitrust damages. Towards non-binding guidance for courts. Study prepared for the European Commission.
  15. Paha J (2010) Endogenous cartel formation with heterogeneous firms and differentiated products. MAGKS discussion paper No. 07-2010.
  16. Prokop J (1999) Process of dominant-cartel formation. Int J Ind Organ 17(2):241–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Reiss PC, Wolak FA (2007) Structural econometric modeling: rationales and examples from industrial organization. In: Heckman JJ, Leamer EE (eds) Handbook of econometrics, vol 6A. Elsevier North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  18. Rotemberg JJ, Saloner G (1986) A supergame-theoretic model of price wars during booms. Am Econ Rev 76(3):390–407Google Scholar
  19. Shubik M, Levitan R (1980) Market structure and behavior. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair for Industrial Organization, Regulation and Antitrust (VWL 1), Justus-Liebig-University GiessenGiessenGermany

Personalised recommendations