Cartels and tacit collusion Flashcards
What does it mean if a firm were to collude or price fix?
The firms avoid competing with one another
Why is collusion said to be tacit?
Because firms non-cooperatively adopt strategies that lead to a coordinated outcome
True or False:
There is a consensus that collusive agreements are welfare-reducing and should therefore be forbidden
True
What are the two important aspects of collusion discussed in this chapter?
Cartel formation and the stability of such cartels, including their optimal and equilibrium size.
How can collusion be sustained without binding agreements?
Collusion can be sustained as the non-cooperative equilibrium of repeated competition, leading to a tacit understanding among firms on how to behave in a coordinated way without explicit agreements.
Why is tacit collusion of particular importance for firms?
Tacit collusion is important because while explicit cartels are illegal, firms can still implicitly coordinate, understanding how other firms will react to their behavior without binding agreements
What is the main issue with tacit collusion?
Determining the sustainability of tacitly agreed-upon prices within a non-cooperative equilibrium when competition is repeated over time.
What lesson does the vitamin cartel case provide about the potential risks and consequences of corporate collusion?
It demonstrates that while cartels may offer short-term profits for companies, the long-term risks and consequences including fines, legal costs, reputational damage, and potential imprisonment for executives, are severe.
What effect does the formation of a cartel have on competition within an industry?
They eliminate the competition between them, leading to reduced joint output or increased prices.
Why might cartels be considered unstable?
because firms outside the cartel might benefit from the collusive behaviour, leading them to free-ride on the efforts of the cartel, and the stability of a cartel depends on the institutional procedures that govern its formation.
What are the three procedures contrasted in the study of cartels?
1) Firms deciding simultaneously to participate in a single industry-wide cartel with open membership
2) The endogenous formation of multiple cartels with exclusive membership
3) bilateral market-sharing agreements that create a collusive network.
How does the first procedure of cartel formation differ from the second?
In the first procedure, cartel membership is open and firms cannot exclude others from joining. In the second, cartels form sequentially with exclusive membership, and each firm’s decision influences subsequent actions.
What characterises the third procedure of cartel formation?
The third procedure relies on bilateral market-sharing agreements, where pairs of firms refrain from competing in each other’s territories, thus forming a collusive network.
What market structure is used to compare the three cartel formation procedures?
The comparison is made in a market structure where symmetric firms produce a homogeneous good at a constant marginal cost, competing à la Cournot with an inverse demand function P=a−q, where q is the total quantity produced.
Tacit collusion analysis is highly relevant for explicit agreements, true or false?
True
Under simultaneous cartel formation, do firms have an incentive to leave the cartel?
Yes, due to the free riding effect
When firms produce horizontally differentiated goods, is the free riding effect larger or smaller than if they were to produce homogeneous goods
Smaller, as competition is relaxed