De Economist

, Volume 166, Issue 1, pp 111–134 | Cite as

Sanctions and Leniency to Individuals, and its Impact on Cartel Discoveries: Evidence from the Netherlands

Article
  • 63 Downloads

Abstract

Many competition authorities employ a leniency programme to fight cartels. We examine the impact of the introduction of sanctions and leniency for individuals responsible for the cartel, on the number of cartel discoveries. In our empirical study of the Dutch leniency programme, we find that this did not lead to more cartels being desisted as the number of cartel discoveries decreases over time. An analysis of characteristics of cartel members shows harsher enforcement after the revision, which indicates that the decrease in cartel discoveries is in line with higher cartel deterrence. Nevertheless, the number of cartel cases involving leniency actually decreases after the revision.

Keywords

Cartels Leniency programme Individual sanctions Antitrust 

JEL Classification

D43 L12 L13 L41 

References

  1. Apesteguia, J., Dufwenberg, M., & Selten, R. (2007). Blowing the whistle. Economic Theory, 31(1), 143–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aubert, C., Rey, P., & Kovacic, W. E. (2006). The impact of leniency and whistle-blowing programs on cartels. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(6), 1241–1266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Authority for Consumers and Markets. (2013–2014). Annual report. https://jaarverslag.acm.nl/downloads-pdf.
  4. Authority for Consumers and Markets. (2016). ACM imposed fines of EUR 12.5 million on cold-storage firms. https://www.acm.nl/en/publications/publication/15609/ACM-imposed-fines-of-EUR-125-million-on-cold-storage-firms/.
  5. Berlin, M. P., Qin, B., & Spagnolo, G. (2017). Leniency, asymmetric punishment and corruption: Evidence from China, discussion paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2718181.
  6. Bigoni, M., Fridolfsson, S.-O., Le Coq, C., & Spagnolo, G. (2012). Fines, leniency and rewards in antitrust. RAND Journal of Economics, 43(2), 368–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bigoni, M., Fridolfsson, S.-O., Le Coq, C., & Spagnolo, G. (2015). Trust, leniency, and deterrence. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 31(4), 663–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bos, I., Davies, S. W., Harrington Jr, J. E., & Ormosi, P. L. (2017). Does enforcement deter cartels? A tale of two tails, discussion paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2471425.
  9. Brenner, S. (2009). An empirical study of the European corporate leniency program. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27(6), 639–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bruneckienė, J., & Pekarskienė, I. (2015). Economic efficiency of fines imposed on cartels. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics, 26(1), 49–60.Google Scholar
  11. Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. (1986). Econometric models based on count data: Comparisons and applications of some estimators and tests. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 1(1), 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chen, J., & Harrington Jr, J. E. (2007). The impact of the corporate leniency program on cartel formation and the cartel price path. In V. Ghosal, & J. Stennek (Eds.), The political economy of antitrust, Contributions to economic analysis, chap. 3 (Vol. 282, pp. 59–80). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  13. Choi, Y. J., & Hahn, K. S. (2014). The impact of the corporate leniency program on cartel stability. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 10(4), 883–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clemens, G., & Rau, H. A. (2015). Do leniency policies facilitate collusion? Experimental evidence, discussion paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2343915.
  15. Connor, J. M. (2007). Price-fixing overcharges: Legal and economic evidence. In J. Richard O. Zerbe, & J. B. Kirkwood (Eds.), Research in law and economics: A journal of policy (Vol. 22, pp. 59–153). Amsterdam: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.Google Scholar
  16. Connor, J. M., & Bolotova, Y. (2006). Cartel overcharges: Survey and meta-analysis. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(6), 1109–1137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. De, O. (2010). Analysis of cartel duration: Evidence from EC prosecuted cartels. International Journal of the Economics of Business, 17(1), 33–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dijkstra, P. T., Haan, M. A., & Schoonbeek, L. (2017). Leniency programs and the design of antitrust: Experimental evidence with rich communication. Groningen: University of Groningen.Google Scholar
  19. Ellis, C. J., & Wilson, W. W. (2003). Cartels, price-fixing, and corporate leniency policy: What doesn’t kill us makes us stronger. Eugene: University of Oregon. (Discussion paper).Google Scholar
  20. European Commission. (1996). Commission notice on the non-imposition or reduction of fines in cartel cases. Official Journal of the European Communities C, 207, 4–6.Google Scholar
  21. European Commission. (2002). Commission notice on immunity from fines and reduction of fines in cartel cases. Official Journal of the European Communities, C, 45, 3–5.Google Scholar
  22. European Commission. (2012). Antitrust: Commission fines Producers of TV and computer monitor tubes €1.47 billion for two decade-long cartels. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-12-1317_en.pdf, IP/12/1317.
  23. European Commission. (2016). EU competition policy in action: Why competition policy is a good value for money. https://doi.org/10.2763/181674.
  24. European Commission. (2017). Antitrust: Commission introduces new anonymous whistleblower tool. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-591_en.pdf, IP/17/591.
  25. Feinberg, R. M., Kim, H., & Park, M. (2016). The determinants of cartel duration in Korea. Review of Industrial Organization, 48(4), 433–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ghosal, V., & Gallo, J. (2001). The cyclical behavior of the department of justices antitrust enforcement activity. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 19(12), 27–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Global Competition Review. (2003–2015). Rating enforcement. http://globalcompetitionreview.com/series/rating-enforcement.
  28. Gouriéroux, C., Monfort, A., & Trognon, A. (1984). Pseudo maximum likelihood methods: Applications to Poisson models. Econometrica, 52(3), 701–720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hamaguchi, Y., Kawagoe, T., & Shibata, A. (2009). Group size effects on cartel formation and the enforcement power of leniency programs. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27(2), 145–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hammond, S. D. (2000). Detecting and deterring cartel activity through an effective leniency program. In Presented before the international workshop on cartels, November, 21–22. England: Brighton.Google Scholar
  31. Harrington, J. E, Jr. (2008). Optimal corporate leniency programs. Journal of Industrial Economics, 56(2), 215–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Harrington, J. E, Jr., & Chang, M.-H. (2009). Modeling the birth and death of cartels with an application to evaluating competition policy. Journal of the European Economic Association, 7(6), 1400–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harrington, J. E, Jr., & Wei, Y. (2017). What can the duration of discovered cartels tell us about the duration of all cartels? The Economic Journal, 127(604), 1977–2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hinloopen, J., & Soetevent, A. R. (2008). Laboratory evidence on the effectiveness of corporate leniency programs. RAND Journal of Economics, 39(2), 607–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marvão, C., & Spagnolo, G. (2014). What do we know about the effectiveness of leniency policies? A survey of the empirical and experimental evidence. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2511613.
  36. Miller, N. H. (2009). Strategic leniency and cartel enforcement. American Economic Review, 99(3), 750–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Motta, M. (2004). Competition policy—Theory and practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Motta, M., & Polo, M. (2003). Leniency programs and cartel prosecution. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(3), 347–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. NMa. (1998). Ruim duizend ontheffingsverzoeken kartelverbod bij NMa ingediend. https://www.acm.nl/nl/publicaties/publicatie/4853/Ruim-duizend-ontheffingsverzoeken-kartelverbod-bij-NMa-ingediend/.
  40. NMa. (2007). Richtsnoeren Clementie (oktober 2007). https://www.acm.nl/nl/download/bijlage/?id=7852.
  41. Ormosi, P. L. (2014). A tip of the iceberg? The probability of catching cartels. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 29(4), 549–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Posner, R. A. (1970). A statistical study of antitrust enforcement. The Journal of Law and Economics, 13(2), 365–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Spagnolo, G. (2004). Divide et impera: Optimal leniency programmes, CEPR discussion paper no. 4840. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research.Google Scholar
  44. Spagnolo, G. (2008). Leniency and whistleblowers in antitrust. In P. Buccirossi (Ed.), Handbook of antitrust economics (pp. 259–304). Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.Google Scholar
  45. Staatscourant. (2002). Richtsnoeren Clementietoezegging. https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stcrt-2002-122-p16-SC35235.html.
  46. Staatscourant. (2014). Beleidsregel van de Minister van Economische Zaken van 4 juli 2014, nr. WJZ/14112586, tot vermindering van geldboetes betreffende kartels (Beleidsregel clementie). https://zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/stcrt-2014-19745.html.
  47. US Department of Justice. (1993). Corporate leniency policy. http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0091.pdf.
  48. van den Broek, S., Kemp, R. G. M., Verschoor, W. F. C., & de Vries, A.-C. (2012). Reputational penalties to firms in antitrust investigations. Journal of Competition Law & Economics, 8(2), 231–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ysewyn, J., & van Schoorisse, M. (2016). Latest developments in Anti-Cartel Enforcement in the European Union (June 2015–June 2016). https://www.cov.com/-/media/files/corporate/publications/2016/09/latest_developments_in_anti_cartel_enforcement_in_the_european_union.pdf.
  50. Zhou, J. (2015). Evaluating leniency with missing information on undetected cartels: Exploring time-varying policy impacts on cartel duration, discussion paper. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1985816.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Chief Economist Office of the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM)The HagueThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Charles River Associates (CRA) InternationalBrusselsBelgium

Personalised recommendations