Cartel Formation and Cartel Stability - Experiments on the Role of the Leniency Rule and with open Communication

卡特尔起诉是世界各地反垄断机构工作的重要组成部分，因为卡特尔会严重损害社会福利。最近，许多反垄断机构引入了宽大处理规则，以破坏现有卡特尔的稳定，并阻碍新卡特尔的形成。从经验上讲，很难判断这些措施的成功与否，因为研究人员无法观察到发挥作用的卡特尔(数量)。因此，需要对该课题进行实验研究。然而，以往的实验研究在许多方面简化了决策框架，因此很难从实验结果中得出宽大规则对真实卡特尔的影响的结论，本项目的主要目的是分析反垄断机构作为积极参与者参与实验时宽大政策的有效性。就结果的外部有效性而言，这是至关重要的。最重要的是，活跃的反垄断机构的存在使通信得以进行，而不一定导致卡特尔的形成，并允许自由文本通信。以前关于宽大处理规则的研究没有区分明确的价格协议和关于无害主题的沟通，在有控制权的情况下，沟通的决定自动被解释为形成卡特尔。然而，不管怎样，真实公司的真实员工还是会时不时地与其他公司的员工见面，例如在交易会的背景下。此外，根据法律规定，律师事务所不能因为谈论与市场行为或价格无关的话题而被起诉，但即使这样的沟通也可能通过建立信任来促进串通。以前关于通信对卡特尔形成和稳定的作用的研究没有考虑与反垄断机构的互动或引入宽大处理规则。该项目还有三个进一步的目标。首先，我们将分析卡特尔的形成和稳定性如何受到更灵活的沟通方式的影响，在这种方式下，如果集团作为一个整体不一致同意沟通，公司的子集团也可以进行沟通。其次，我们将明确分析在被认定的头目被免除罚款时，与积极的反垄断机构一起对卡特尔提起诉讼。最后，我们计划测试市场行为是否会发生变化，与当前的做法相反，消费者盈余实际上是以消费者的角色支付给实验参与者的。

Cartel prosecution is an important part of the work of antitrust authorities all around the world, because cartels can severely harm social welfare. Recently, many antitrust authorities introduced leniency rules to destabilize existing cartels and hinder the formation of new ones. Empirically, it is difficult to judge the success of these measures, because researchers cannot observe (the number of) functioning cartels. Therefore, experimental studies on the topic are needed. However, previous experimental studies have simplified the decision framework in many aspects so that it is hard to draw conclusions about the effects of the leniency rule on real cartels from their results.The main objective of the project is to analyze the effectiveness of leniency policies when the antitrust authority is included as an active player in the experiment. This is crucial with respect to the external validity of the results. Most importantly, the presence of an active antitrust authority allows communication to take place without necessarily resulting in cartel formation and allows for free text communication. Previous studies on the leniency rule did not distinguish explicit price agreements from communication about harmless topics and in case of a control, the decision to communicate was automatically interpreted as the formation of a cartel. However, real employees of real firms meet the employees of other firms anyway from time to time, for example in the context of trade fairs. Moreover, while according to the law firms cannot be prosecuted for talking about topics that are unrelated to market conduct or prices, even such communication may facilitate collusion by generating trust. Previous studies on the role of communication for cartel formation and stability did not consider the interaction with an antitrust authority or the introduction of a leniency rule. The project has three further objectives. First, we will analyze how cartel formation and stability is affected by an even more flexible approach to communication where subgroups of firms can also communicate if the group as a whole does not unanimously agree to communicate. Second, we will explicitly analyze cartel prosecution with active antitrust authorities when an identified ringleader is exempt from fine. Finally, we plan to test whether market conduct changes when, in contrast to current practice, the consumer surplus is actually paid to experimental participants in the role of consumers.