Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Published in:
Conception of Cartels: Definition and Diversity Read chapter Read first chapter

2015 | OriginalPaper | Chapter

5. Analysis of the Impact of Cartels on National Economy and Competitiveness

Authors : Jurgita Bruneckienė, Irena Pekarskienė, Andrius Guzavičius, Oksana Palekienė, Jūratė Šovienė

Published in: The Impact of Cartels on National Economy and Competitiveness

Publisher: Springer International Publishing

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Evaluation of the impact of cartels on national economy and competitiveness is a relevant issue for EU Member States and Lithuania, as the country of small economy with developing culture of competition; however, apart from episodic discussions in the public domain this topic has been scarcely analysed in Lithuania. This explains why most conclusions in this monograph rely on studies carried out by foreign authors. Although it is widely known that cartels are harmful to society, there is a lack of research and studies on the cartels’ impact on national economies and competitiveness. The literature generally analyses the adverse effects (harm) of cartel outcomes on an individual affected party (e.g. on the final and/or intermediate customer, competitors, suppliers), but not on national economy or competitiveness. Insufficiency of studies on the impact of cartels on national economy and competitiveness justifies the relevance and timeliness of the problems addressed.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
previous chapter Legal Regulation of Cartels
next chapter Critical Analysis of Economic Efficiency of Fines Imposed on Cartels
Footnotes
1
At best, cartel can fix the monopolist’s price and therefore the final outcome of a cartel is a monopoly in the market and profit which is equal or close to the monopolist’s profit. Even though this is a more theoretical outcome, such modelling and establishment of emergencies can show maximum effects made by a cartel on an economy.
 
2
Consumer surplus represents the difference between the maximum price a consumer is willing to pay and the actual price he does pay. The welfare (surplus) of market consumers is the sum of the consumers’ surplus for all individual consumers.
 
3
Producer surplus is the profit obtained after selling the good at issue. Market producer surplus is the sum of profits derived by all market producers.
 
4
Total surplus is maximised at the market equilibrium under conditions of perfect competition, i.e. the triangle’s area aky is the largest when ahy—consumer surplus, while the triangle’s area hky—producer surplus. When a cartel is formed in the market it sets the price equal to the monopolist’s price and the amount sold in the market decreases. Consumer surplus decreases and is equal to the triangle’s area jax. Cartel’s profit (producer surplus) increases and is equal to area jxzk. The total surplus is represented by the area axzk (area axzk < area ayk). Thus, market welfare is the lowest when the market price is equal to the monopolist’s price (the maximum price that the firms could set) (in the monopolist market), and the highest when the price is equal to marginal costs (in perfect competition market). It should be stressed that the total surplus is higher in a perfect competition market than in a monopolist market, but the producer surplus is higher in a monopolist market than in a perfect competition market. As a result of passing from a monopolist market to a perfect competition market the producer obtains an additional surplus equal to the area wyz. This requires the establishment of a market price equal to P before_cartel, which withdraws surplus equal to the area hjxw (area hjxw > area wyz). The decrease in consumer surplus resulting from transition from perfect competition market to monopolist market is higher than the increase in monopolist surplus, i.e. the total surplus equal to the area xwy is lost. The triangle’s area xyz shows total market inefficiency in the case of monopolist market structure, i.e. the loss of additional total surplus which would be achieved in the presence of perfect competition market structure. This is deadweight loss. The part of demand line in the section xy shows the loss of consumer marginal value, while the part of supply line in the section zy—producer’s marginal costs.
 
5
For example, cartel members may use tariff barriers and antidumping duties to prevent entry by developing country participants. International cartels may also use government-authorized, non-tariff barriers to prevent entry (e.g., quotas or regulation) or punish outsiders (e.g., using trade reporting and import surveillance by government agencies to track where other firms are selling). In addition, cartels can construct private barriers to prevent entry, such as the threat of retaliatory or predatory price wars, use of a common sales or distribution agency and patent pooling.
 
Literature
Aghion, P., Carlin, W., & Schaffer, M. E. (2002). Competition, innovation and growth in transition: Exploring the interactions between policies. Davidson Institute Working Paper No. 501. Ann Arbor, MI: William Davidson Institute, University of Michigan.
Bertrand, O., & Ivaldi, M. (2006). European competition policy in international markets. IDEI Working Paper, 419. doi:10.2139/ssrn.951594.
Bolotova, Y., Connor, J., & Miller, D. (2007). Factors influencing the magnitude of cartel overcharges: An empirical analysis of food-industry cartels. Agribusiness, 23(1), 17–33. doi:10.​1002/​agr.​20111.CrossRef
Bolotova, Y., Connor, J. M., & Miller, D. J. (2008). Factors influencing the magnitude of cartel overcharges: An empirical analysis of the US market. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 5(2), 361–381. doi:10.​1093/​joclec/​nhn025.CrossRef
Carlton, D. W. (2007). Does antitrust need to be modernized? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 21, 155–176.CrossRef
Cohen, M. A., & Scheffman, D. T. (1989). Antitrust sentencing guideline: Is the punishment worth the costs. The American Criminal Law Review, 27, 331.
Connor, J. М. (2005). Price-fixing overcharges: Legal and economic evidence. Staff Paper 04–17, Purdue University.
Connor, J. M. (2008). Global Price Fixing. Studies in Industrial Organization (2nd ed.). Heidelberg: Springer.
Connor, J. (2010). Recidivism revealed: Private international cartels 1990–2009. Competition Policy International, 6 (2). doi:10.2139/ssrn.1688508.
Davies, S., & Ormosi, P. L. (2010). Assessing competition policy: Methodologies, gaps and agenda for future research. CCP Working Paper, 10 (19). doi:10.2139/ssrn.1723115.
Dumčiuvienė, D., Bruneckienė, J., Kilijonienė, A., Startienė, G., Snieškienė, G., Bernatonytė, D., et al. (2011). Verslo aplinka Lietuvoje ir Ukrainoje: sektorinė analizė (The Business Environment in Lithuania and Ukraine: sectorial analysis). 1 tomas/1 Volume, Lietuvos verslo konkurencingumo didinimo sąlygos ir prielaidos: mokslo monografija (Improving the Conditions and Assumptions of Lithuanian Business Competitiveness: scientific monograph). Kaunas: Kaunas University of Technology, Publishing Office Technologija.
Friederiszick, H. W., & Röller, L. H. (2010). Quantification of harm in damages actions for antitrust infringements: Insights from German cartel cases. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 6(3), 595–618. doi:10.​1093/​joclec/​nhq008.CrossRef
Geroski, P. A. (1995). Market structure, corporate performance, and innovative activity (Vol. 1). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Günster, A., & van Dijk, M. A. (2010). The Impact of European antitrust policy: Evidence from the stock market. Working Paper, ETH Zurich/Erasmus University Rotterdam.
Hüschelrath, K. (2009a). Competition policy analysis—An integrated approach. ZEW Economic Studies, Bd. 41, Heidelberg.
Hüschelrath, K., & Weigand, J. (2010). Fighting hard core cartels (No. 10-084). ZEW Discussion Papers. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1727396.
Klimašauskienė, D. (2006). Konkurencijos politika: teorija ir praktikos aktualijos (Competition policy: The actualities of theory and practice). Public Administration, 10, 43–50.
Levenstein, M. C., & Suslow, V. Y. (2004a). The changing international status of export cartel exemptions. American University International Law Review, 20(3), 785–829. doi:10.​2139/​ssrn.​618201.
Levenstein, M. C., & Suslow, V. Y. (2004b). Contemporary international cartels and developing countries: Economic effects and implications for competition policy. Antitrust Law Journal, 71(3), 801–852.
Marshall, R. C., & Marx, L. M. (2012). The economics of collusion: Cartels and bidding rings. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Motta, M. (2004). Competition policy. Theory and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Motta, M. (2008). On cartel deterrence and fines in the European Union. European Competition Law Review, 29(4), 209–220.
Motta, M., & Langus, G. (2007). On the effect of EU cartel investigations and fines on the infringing firms’ market value. In C.-D. Ehlermann & I. Atanasiu (Eds.), Enforcement of prohibition of cartels (pp. 363–376). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Pepall, L., Richards, D., & Norman, G. (2008). Industrial organization: Contemporary theory and empirical applications (Vol. 4). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Porter, M. E. (1990). The competitive advantage of notions. Harvard business review, 68(2), 73–93.
Symeonidis, G. (2001). Price competition, innovation and profitability: Theory and UK evidence. In M. C. Levenstein & and S. W. Salant (eds), Cartels, The international library of critical writings in economics series, Edward Elgar, 2007. Also available as CEPR Discussion Paper No. 2816.
Utton, M. A. (2011). Cartels and economic collusion: The persistence of corporate conspiracies. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRef
Wonnacott, P., & Wonnacott, R. (1997). Mikroekonomika (Microeconomics). (2-asis leidimas/2nd edition). Kaunas: Poligrafija ir informatika.
Metadata
Title
Analysis of the Impact of Cartels on National Economy and Competitiveness
Authors
Jurgita Bruneckienė
Irena Pekarskienė
Andrius Guzavičius
Oksana Palekienė
Jūratė Šovienė
Copyright Year
2015
Book
The Impact of Cartels on National Economy and Competitiveness

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-17286-6

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-17287-3

Copyright Year: 2015

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-17287-3_5