Advertisement

European Journal of Law and Economics

, Volume 26, Issue 2, pp 213–232 | Cite as

Screening markets for cartel detection: collusive markers in the CFD cartel-audit

  • Christian Lorenz
Article

Abstract

Coordination Failure Diagnostics (CFD) is a model that analyses real market processes with the help of time pattern analysis and investigates whether they operate efficiently. For competition authorities CFD can be employed to detect illegal covert cartels. The CFD cartel-audit should enable the detection of cartels via characteristic market process patterns. This is based on the assumption that existing cartels cause failures in the observed process patterns. The CFD cartel-audit attempts to draw conclusions from these process patterns in order to find hidden cartels and to engage antitrust agencies into additional more detailed audits.

JEL Classifications

L13 L41 L61 D43 

Keywords

Cartel detection Collusive marker Market screening Cartel audit Cement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Christian Lorenz would like to thank Heinz Grossekettler, Carsten Burhop and Mei Yee Pang for useful remarks.

References

  1. Abrantes-Metz, R. M., Froeb, L. M., Geweke, J. F., & Taylor, C. T. (2006). A variance screen for collusion. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24(3), 467–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Albaek, S., Mollgaard, P., & Overgaars, P. B. (1997). Government-assisted oligopoly coordination? A concrete case. The Journal of Industrial Economics, XLV(4), 429–443.Google Scholar
  3. Asch, P., & Seneca, J. J. (1975). Characteristics of collusive firms. Journal of Industrial Economics, 23(3), 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bain, J. S. (1949). A note on pricing in monopoly and oligopoly. American Economic Review, 39, 448–464.Google Scholar
  5. Barro, R., & Xavier Sala-ì-Martin. (1995). Economic growth. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  6. Blum, U., Schaller, A., & Veltins, M. (2004). The East German Cement Cartel—An inquiry into comparable markets, industry structure, and antitrust policy. Dresden Discussion Paper in Economics, 04/04, Dresden University.Google Scholar
  7. Böhm, F. (1963). Die Bedrohung der Freiheit durch private ökonomische Macht in der heutigen Gesellschaft. Universitas, 18, 37–48.Google Scholar
  8. Carlton, D. W., & Perloff, J. M. (1994). Modern industrial organization. New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.Google Scholar
  9. Drecker, J. (1998). Die Elektrotechnische Industrie in Deutschland—Eine Untersuchung auf der Basis des Konzepts zur Koordinationsmängeldiagnose. Lohmar: Eul Verlag.Google Scholar
  10. Dumez, H., & Jeunemaître, A. (2000). Understanding and regulating the market at a time of globalization–The case of the cement industry. London: MacMillan Pres Ltd.Google Scholar
  11. Galbraith, J. K. (1980). American capitalism. The concept of countervailing power. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  12. Gromer, S. (2006). Die Automobilindustrie in Deutschland—Eine Untersuchung auf Basis des Konzepts zur Koordinationsmängeldiagnose, Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.Google Scholar
  13. Grossekettler, H. (1999). Das Koordinationsmängel-Diagnosekonzept als didaktisches Instrument. In L. Lübke & H. Grossekettler (Eds.), Beiträge zur Wirtschafts- und Finanzpolitik—Festschrift für Ingolf Metze. Berlin: Duncker&Humblot.Google Scholar
  14. Grossekettler, H. (forthcoming). Assessing the workability of real markets? The Coordination Failure Diagnostics (CFD) approach.Google Scholar
  15. Harrington, J. E. (2006). Detecting cartels. In P. Buccirossi (Ed.), Handbook in antitrust economics. MIT Press.Google Scholar
  16. Harrington, J. E., & Chen, J. (2006). Cartel pricing dynamics with cost variability and endogenous buyer detection. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24, 1185–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hayek, F. A. v. (1937). Economics and Knowledge. Economica, 4, 33–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hayek, F. A. v. (1945). The use of knowledge in society. American Economic Review, 35, 519–530.Google Scholar
  19. Heuss, E. (1965). Allgemeine Markttheorie, Tübingen/Zürich, Mohr.Google Scholar
  20. Ivaldi, M., Jullien, B., Rey, P., Seabright, P., & Tirole, J. (2003). The economics of Tacit Collusion. Final Report for DG Competition, European Commission. Toulouse: IDEI.Google Scholar
  21. Kooths, S. (forthcoming). MOTERRA: an object-based decision support system for market process diagnoses”. http://mice.uni-muenster.de/team/kooths/research.cfm#focus2.
  22. Krämer, T. (1992). Simulation und Funktionsfähigkeitsprüfung verbundener Marktprozesse, Frankfurt/M: Lang.Google Scholar
  23. Kubani, F. (2007). Die Europäische Stahlindustrie—Eine Untersuchung auf der Basis des Konzepts zur Koordinationsmängeldiagnose, Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.Google Scholar
  24. Kühn, K.-U. (2001). Fighting collusion by regulating communication between firms. Economic Policy: A European Forum, 32, 167–204.Google Scholar
  25. Kwoka, J. E., & White, L. J. (2004). The antitrust revolution—economics, competition, and policy (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Levenstein, M. C., & Suslow, V. Y. (2006). What determines cartel success? Journal of Economic Literature, 44(1), 43–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lorenz, C. (forthcoming). The market share volatility as an indication for cartelized structures.Google Scholar
  28. Lorenz, C. (2006). Marktscreening nach Kartellstrukturen—Ein Verfahren zur Kartellaufdeckung auf Basis des Koordinationsmängel-Diagnosekonzepts (KMD-Kartellcheck), Hamburg: Dr. Kovac.Google Scholar
  29. Lorenz, C. (2004). How to apply the quantitative methods embedded in CFD’s framework with a specific focus on statistical tests and indices measuring the workability of markets. Economic Discussion Paper 363. University of Muenster.Google Scholar
  30. Lorenz, W., & Gwosdz, W. (2001). Trends in der Zementindustrie. Commodity Top News, 15.Google Scholar
  31. Lorenz, C., & Pohl, I. (2006). “Koordinationseffizienz der deutschen Textilwirtschaft—Eine Branchenanalyse auf Basis des Koordinationsmängel-Diagnosekonzepts”. FATM-Arbeitspapiere, 38, Muenster.Google Scholar
  32. Mankiw, N. G. (1995). The growths of nations. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1, 275–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Office of Fair Trading. (2004). Empirical indicators for market investigations, main report, 749.Google Scholar
  34. Osborne, M. J., & Pitchik, C. (1987). Cartels, profits and excess capacity. International Economic Review, 28(2), 413–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Porter, R. H. (2005). Detecting collusion. Review of Industrial Organization, 26(2), 147–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sebbel-Leschke, B. (1996). Technischer Fortschritt—Eine Analyse zur Funktionsfähigkeitsprüfung des Produkt- und des Verfahrensfortschrittsprozesses im Rahmen des Konzeptes zur Koordinationsmängeldiagnose, Bergisch-Gladbach: Josef Eul.Google Scholar
  37. Solow, R. M. (1957). Technological change and the aggregate production function. Review of Economics and Statistics, 39, 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Stetter, A. (forthcoming). Die Maschinenbauindustrie in Deutschland—Eine Untersuchung auf der Basis des Konzeptes zur Koordinationsmängeldiagnose.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for International Migration and DevelopmentFrankfurt a.M.Germany

Personalised recommendations