Recent Advances in the Analysis of Competition Policy and Regulation
Show Less

Recent Advances in the Analysis of Competition Policy and Regulation

Edited by Joseph E. Harrington Jr and Yannis Katsoulacos

Bringing scholars and policymakers to the frontiers of research and addressing the critical issues of the day, the book presents original important new theoretical and empirical results. The distinguished contributors include: P. Agrel, K. Alexander, J. Crémer, X. Dassiou, G. Deltas, F. Etro, L. Filistrucchi, P. Fotis, M. Gilli, J. Harrington Jr, T. Huertas, M. Ivaldi, B. Jullien, V. Marques, M. Peitz, Y. Spiegel, E. Tarrantino and G. Wood.
Buy Book in Print
Show Summary Details
You do not have access to this content

Chapter 2: Corporate Leniency with Private Information: An Exploratory Example

Joseph E. Harrington


Joseph E. Harrington Jr1 2.1 INTRODUCTION One of the most important policy developments in US antitrust policy in recent decades is the 1993 revision of the Corporate Leniency Program by the Department of Justice (DOJ). Originally created in 1978, this program allows corporations, who are engaging in illegal antitrust activity (such as price-fixing), to receive amnesty from government penalties if they come forward and cooperate. The 1993 revision made it possible for amnesty to be awarded even when an investigation had been started and made it a condition that the DOJ ‘has not received information about the illegal activity being reported from any other source.’ This means that amnesty is limited to one firm per cartel. The appeal of these programs for discovering cartels and acquiring the evidence to effectively prosecute them has resulted in the adoption of some form of a corporate leniency program by more than 50 countries and jurisdictions. In light of the importance of leniency programs in practice, there has been a considerable amount of research exploring how leniency programs affect the incentives to collude and to report cartels. Beginning with the pioneering paper of Motta and Polo (2003), the primary force in theoretical analyses is that the competition authority may catch the colluding firms and, in anticipation of that prospect, firms may apply for leniency; this I will refer to as the ‘prosecution effect.’ For example, in Harrington (2008), the probability of the competition authority discovering and successfully prosecuting the cartel varies over time and...

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

Elgaronline requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals. Please login through your library system or with your personal username and password on the homepage.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/ extracts and download selected front matter and introductory chapters for personal use.

Your library may not have purchased all subject areas. If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Further information

or login to access all content.