Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

Skip to main content
Log in

Collusion and Information Exchange

  • Article
  • Published:
The Japanese Economic Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Antitrust authorities view that exchange of individual firms’ sales data is more anti-competitive than that of aggregate sales data. In this paper, I survey antitrust implications of such inter-firm information exchange. I argue that both types of information exchange are anti-competitive under some circumstances. More precisely, I compare profits when each type of information exchange is allowed to that when firms can only observe their own sales (Stigler’s secret price-cutting model), and the former is bigger than the latter. I also provide a general method to bound the equilibrium profits without such information exchange.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

  • Aryal, G., F. Ciliberto and B. Leyden (2018) “Public Communication and Collusion in the Airline Industry”, Working Paper.

  • Athey, S. and K. Bagwell (2001) “Optimal Collusion with Private Information”, RAND Journal of Economics, Vol. 32, 428–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Awaya, Y. and V. Krishna (2016) “On Communication and Collusion”, American Economic Review, Vol. 106, No. 2, pp. 285–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —— and —— (2018a) “Communication and Cooperation in Repeated Games”, Theoretical Economics, Vol. 14, pp. 513–553.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —— and —— (2018b) “Information Exchange in Cartels”, Working Paper.

  • Compte, O. (1998) “Communication in Repeated Games with Imperfect Private Monitoring”, Econometrica, Vol. 66, pp. 597–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Escobar, J. F. and G. Llanes (2018) “Cooperation Dynamics in Repeated Games of Adverse Selection”, Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 176, pp. 408–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • —— and J. Toikka (2013) “Efficiency in Games with Markovian Private Information”, Econometrica, Vol. 81, pp. 1887–1934.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • European Commission (2011) “Guidelines on the Applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to Horizontal Co-operation Agreements”, Official Journal of the European Union, Vol. IV, C pp. 11–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Trade Commission (2014) “Information Exchange: Be Reasonable” (online) [Cited 11 Dec 2014.]. Available from URL: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/competition-matters/2014/12/information-exchange-be-reasonable.

  • Genesove, D. and W. Mullin (2001) “Rules, Communication, and Collusion: Narrative Evidence from the Sugar Institute Case”, American Economic Review, Vol. 91, No. 3, 379–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerard-Varet L. A and H. Moulin (1978) “Correlation in Duopoly”, Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 19, No. 1, 123–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrington, J. (2006) “How do Cartels Operate?”, Foundations and Trends in Microeconomics, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 1–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Japan Fair Trade Commission (1995) Guidelines Concerning the Activities of Trade Associations under the Antimonopoly Act, Tokyo: Japan Fair Trade Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Japan Fair Trade Commission (1999) “Information on Production Volume and Demand Trend [Group guidelines 9-1, 9-4]”. Tokyo: Japan Fair Trade Commission. [Cited 11 Dec 2014.] Available from URL: http://www.jftc.go.jp/dk/soudanjirei/johokatudo/johokatsudo01.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Japan Fair Trade Commission (2015a) “Collection and Provision of Information by Business Organizations”. Tokyo: Japan Fair Trade Commission. [Cited 11 Dec 2014.] Available from URL: https://www.jftc.go.jp/dk/soudanjirei/h28/h27nendomokuji/h27nendo10.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Japan Fair Trade Commission (2015b) “Collection and Provision of Information by Business Organizations”. Tokyo: Japan Fair Trade Commission. [Cited 11 Dec 2014.] Available from URL: https://www.jftc.go.jp/dk/soudanjirei/h28/h27nendomokuji/h27nendo09.html.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kandori, M. and H. Matsushima (1998) “Private Observation, Communication and Collusion”, Econometrica, Vol. 66, pp. 627–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, R. and L. Marx (2012) The Economics of Collusion, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Moulin, H. and J.-P. Vial (1979) “Strategically Zero-Sum Games: The Class of Games Whose Mixed Strategy Equilibria Cannot be Improved Upon”, International Journal of Game Theory, Vol. 7, Nos 3/4, pp. 201–221.

    Google Scholar 

  • ——, I. Ray and S. Sen Gupta (2014) “Improving Nash by Coarse Correlation”, Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 150, pp. 852–865.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roughgarden, T. (2016) Twenty Lectures on Algorithmic Game Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sahuguet, N. and A. Walckiers (2017) “A Theory of Hub-and-Spoke Collusion”, International Journal of Industrial Organization, Vol. 53, pp. 353–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spector (2018) “Cheap Talk, Monitoring and Collusion”, Working Paper.

  • Stigler, G. J. (1964) “A Theory of Oligopoly”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 72, pp. 44–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sugaya, T. and A. Wolitzky (2018) “Maintaining Privacy in Cartels”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 126, pp. 2569–2607.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Awaya, Y. Collusion and Information Exchange. JER 70, 394–402 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/jere.12241

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jere.12241

JEL Classification Numbers

Navigation