Este trabajo propone un modelo de determinación de las multas por cártel que se aparta en alguna medida del tradicionalmente establecido por los economistas en cuanto trata de incentivar a los cartelistas para que fijen el sobreprecio producto del cártel en el nivel más bajo posible. La intuición es que si uno sabe que le van a multar con una multa estratosférica, sus incentivos son para maximizar el sobreprecio. Si cree que puede escapar a la multa cuando el acuerdo genere un daño a los consumidores de escasa relevancia, evitará la conducta más dañina socialmente
Houba, Harold E. D., Motchenkova, Evgenia and Wen, Quan, Antitrust Enforcement and Marginal Deterrence (November 22, 2011). Tinbergen Institute Discussion Paper No. 11-166/1. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1964751 or doi:10.2139/ssrn.1964751Our major result is that even in the presence of legal ceilings, it is possible to design a more effective structure that is welfare improving when compared to the policy prescriptions currently available in the literature. We demonstrate this by constructing the most effective fine optimal schedule that satisfi es the four legal principles. This fine schedule induces the lowest cartel price that is optimal for the cartel and, hence, reduces the dead-weight loss to its lowest achievable level. This improvement is achieved by making collusion on lower prices more attractive than collusion on higher prices.Hence, the main implication of our analysis is that the antitrust authority should not punish maximally overall, but punish in a smarter manner such that mild offenses are not fined at all. In general, our results call for a subtle reconsideration of the common wisdom in the economics of crime that setting the fine equal to the available legal upper bound always increases the effectiveness of deterrence.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario