European Journal of Law and Economics

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 371–391 | Cite as

Optimal antitrust enforcement: information cost and deterrent effect

  • Juwon Kwak


This study analyzes the optimal antitrust enforcement rule and, in doing so, presents a model that illuminates two important issues. First, it compares the per se legal and illegal judicial standards to the rule of reason judicial standard in terms of information costs and general social welfare. Second, it seeks to derive the optimal judicial standard that minimizes the problems of under- and over-deterrence. These two issues are closely related because the benefit of additional information can only be measured by its deterrent effects. In this respect, this work synthesizes economic models from decision theory and the public enforcement of law. Lastly, in addition to discussing the optimal information level, we derive the optimal permissiveness of the judicial standard, the optimal burden of proof, and the optimal punishment level. We also analyze how these policy variables are interrelated .


Rule of reason Per se legal/illegal Public enforcement of law Type I and type II errors 

Mathematics Subject Classification

K00 K21 K42 L40 L51 


  1. Baker, J. (1988). Private information and the deterrent effect of antitrust damage remedies. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 4, 385–408.Google Scholar
  2. Becker, G. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. The Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beckner, F., & Salop, S. (1999). Decision theory and antitrust rules. Antitrust Law Journal, 67, 41–76.Google Scholar
  4. Besanko, D., & Spulber, D. (1989). Antitrust enforcement under asymmetric information. Economic Journal, 99, 408–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Block, M., Nold, F., & Sidak, J. (1981). The deterrent effect of antitrust enforcement. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 429–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brunet, E. (2009). Antitrust summary judgment and the quick look approach. Lewis & Clark law school legal studies research paper no. 2009-6.Google Scholar
  7. Christiansen, A., & Kerber, W. (2006). Competition policy with optimally differentiated rules instead of per se rules vs rule of reason. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 2, 215–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cyrenne, P. (1999). On antitrust enforcement and the deterrence of collusive behaviour. Review of Industrial Organization, 14, 257–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Ehrlich, I., & Posner, R. (1974). An economic analysis of legal rulemaking. Journal of Legal Studies, 3, 257–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garner, B. (Ed.). (2009). Black’s Law Dictionary. Saint Paul, MN: Thomson West.Google Scholar
  11. Kaplow, L. (1994). The value of accuracy in adjudication: An economic analysis. Journal of Legal Studies, 23, 307–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kaplow, L. (1995). A model of the optimal complexity of legal rules. Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, 12, 150–163.Google Scholar
  13. Kaplow, L. (2011). On the optimal burden of proof. Journal of Political Economy, 119, 1104–1140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kaplow, L., & Shavell, S. (1994). Accuracy in the determination of liability. Journal of Law and Economics, 37, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katsoulacos, Y., & Ulph, D. (2009). On optimal legal standards for competition policy: A general welfare-based analysis. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 57, 410–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Schinkel, M., & Tuinstra, J. (2006). Imperfect competition law enforcement. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 24, 1267–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schwartz, W. (1980). An overview of the economics of antitrust enforcement. Georgetown Law Journal, 69, 1075–1102.Google Scholar
  18. U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. (2010). Horizontal merger guidelines. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  19. Williamson, O. (1968). Economics as an antitrust defense: The welfare trade-offs. The American Economic Review, 58, 18–36.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Economics and TradeKyungpook National UniversityDaeguKorea

Personalised recommendations