Skip to main content
Log in

The great school milk conspiracies of the 1980s

  • Published:
Review of Industrial Organization Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Various dairy companies' allocation of school milk contracts using signalling, sham bids to honor incumbency and other devices are examined to determine whether bidding was collusive or pure oligopolistic interdependent behavior following noncooperative game theory. The schemes used to allocate contracts were found to be efficient methods for reaching agreements. Since pure interdependent (noncoorperative) behavior requires rivals to corelate signals, coordinate expectations, and resolve timing-uncertainty problems within sealed-bidding constraints, detailed analysis of the economic evidence of bidding practices requires rejection of a Nash equilibrium explanation for the behavior.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Areeda, Phillip E. and Hovenkamp, Herbert (Supp. 1991) Antitrust Law, ¶1405, pp. 952–953.

  • ArquitKevin J. (Winter 1993) ‘The Boundaries of Horizontal Restraints: Facilitating Practices and Invitations to Collude’, Antitrust Law Journal, 61, 531–548.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asch, Peter (Spring 1969) ‘Collusive Oligopoly’, Antitrust Law and Economics Review, pp. 53–68.

  • AschPeter and SenecaJ. J. (February 1976) ‘Is Collusion Profitable?’, The Review of Economics and Statistics, LVIII, 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • BlackHenry Campbell (1979) Black's Law Dictionary, St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Company, pp. 280.

    Google Scholar 

  • BakerJonathan B. (Spring 1993) ‘Two Sherman Act Section 1 Dilemmas: Parallel Pricing, the Oligopoly Problem, and Contemporary Economic Theory’, Antitrust Bulletin, 38, 143–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • BlockMichael K. and FeinsteinJonathan S. (February 1986) ‘The Spillover Effect of Antitrust Enforcement’, Review of Economics and Statistics, LXVIII, 122–131.

    Google Scholar 

  • BorkRobert H. (1978) Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War With Itself, New York: Basic Books Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  • Commerce Clearing House (July 12, 1995) Trade Regulation Reports, ¶70, pp. 625.

  • Clark, Donald S. (1983) ‘Price Fixing Without Collusion: An Analysis of Facilitating Practices After Ethyl Corp.’, Wisconsin Law Review, pp. 887–952.

  • ElzingaKenneth G. and BreitWilliam (1976) The Antitrust Penalties: A Study in Law and Economics, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson, W. B. (Spring 1969) ‘Economics of Price Fixing’, Antitrust Law and Economics Review, pp. 83–122.

  • FraasArthur G. and GreerDouglas F. (September 1977) ‘Market Structure and Price Collusion: An Empirical Analysis’, Journal of Industrial Economics, XXVI, 21–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • FriedmanJames W. (1983) Oligopoly Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • FudenbergDrew and TiroleJean (1989) ‘Noncooperative Game Theory for Industrial Organization: An Introduction and Overview’, in RichardSchmalensee and Robert D.Willig (eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, Amsterdam; New York: North-Holland, pp. 259–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government Accounting Office (December 1993) ‘Food Assistance: Information on Costs in the National School Lunch Program’, Briefing Report to Congressional Requesters.

  • GreenEdward J. and PorterRobert H. (January 1984) ‘Noncooperative Collusion under Imperfect Price Information’, Econometrica, 52(1), 87–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • GriffinJames M. and TeeceDavid J. (1982) OPEC Behavior and World Oil Prices. London; Boston: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • HarsanyiJohn C. (1967–1968) ‘Games with Incomplete Information Played by ‘Bayesian’ Players’, Management Science, 14, 159–182, 320–334, and 486–502.

    Google Scholar 

  • HayGeorge A. and KelleyDaniel (April 1974) ‘An Empirical Survey of Price Fixing Conspiracies’, Journal of Law and Economics, XVII, 13–38.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hay, George A. (1989) ‘Practices that Facilitate Cooperation: The Ethyl Case’, The Antitrust Revolution, pp. 183–207.

  • JacqueminAlexis and SladeMargaret E. (1989) ‘Cartels, Collusion, and Horizontal Merger’, in RichardSchmalensee and Robert D.Willig (eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, Amsterdam; New York: North-Holland, pp. 415–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlman, J. M. (Spring 1969) ‘Nature and Significance of Price Fixing Rings’, Antitrust Law and Economics Review, pp. 69–82.

  • MacAvoyPaul W. (1977) Federal Milk Marketing Orders and Price Supports, Washington: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • NashJr. and JohnF. (September 1951) ‘Noncooperative Games’, Annals of Mathmatics, 54, 286–295.

    Google Scholar 

  • PosnerRichard A. (June 1969) ‘Oligopoly and the Antitrust Laws: A Suggested Approach’, Stanford Law Review, 21, 1562–1696.

    Google Scholar 

  • PosnerRichard A. (1976) Antitrust Law, an Economic Perspective, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salop, Steven C. (1986) ‘Practices that (Credibly) Facilitate Oligopoly Co-ordination, New Developments in the Analysis of Market Structure’, in Stiglitz, Joseph E. and Mathewson, G. Frank (eds.), International Economics Association, pp. 265–290.

  • ShapiroCarl (1989) ‘Theories of Oligopoly Behavior’, in RichardSchmalensee and Robert D.Willig (eds.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, Amsterdam; New York: North-Holland, pp. 329–414.

    Google Scholar 

  • ShenefieldJohn H. and StelzerIrwin M. (1993) The Antitrust Laws: A Primer. Washington, D.C.: The AEI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ShubikMartin (1984) Game Theory in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • ShughartWilliam F. (1990) The Organization of Industry. Homeword, IL: BPI/Irwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, Richard A. (April 1961) ‘The Incredible Electrical Conspiracy’, Fortune, pp. 132–137.

  • Sonnenfeld, Jeffrey, and Lawrence, Paul R. (July–August 1978) ‘Why Do Companies Succumb to Price Fixing?’, Harvard Business Review, pp. 145–157.

  • Stigler, George J. (October 1966) ‘Economic Effects of the Antitrust Laws’, Journal of Law and Economics, IX, reprinted in The Organization of Industry, pp. 268. Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin.

  • StockingGeorge W. and WatkinsMyron W. (1948) Cartels or Competition. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • SultanRalph G. M. (1974) Pricing in the Electrical Oligopoly, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turner, D. F. (February 1962) ‘The Definition of Agreement under the Sherman Act: Conscious Parallelism and Refusals to Deal’, Harvard Law Review, pp. 655–706.

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, ‘Economic Effects of Federal Contributions to the U.S. School Lunch Program: Calendar Year 1972 and FY 1974’, Agricultural Economic Report No. 350.

  • U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Services (December 1982) ‘Special Milk Program Evaluation and National School Lunch Program Survey’, FNS-167, 1978.

  • VonNeumannJohn and MorgensternOskar (1944) Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldman, Don E. (Spring 1988) ‘The Inefficiencies of ‘Unsuccessful’ Price Fixing Agreements’, Antitrust Bulletin, pp. 67–93.

  • World Almanac and Book of Facts, The, 1994, p. 123.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lanzillotti, R.F. The great school milk conspiracies of the 1980s. Rev Ind Organ 11, 413–458 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00157772

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00157772

Key words

Navigation