Abstract
We analyze the impact of ringleader discrimination in leniency programs on the sustainability of collusion. An important role of leniency is to elicit cartel members’ evidence about collusive activity in order to increase the probability of convicting the cartel. We find that ringleader discrimination does not play a role when the ringleader’s relative amount of evidence is high as the collusive agreement will specify and compensate the ringleader to never blow the whistle in any case whereas ringleader discrimination has a pro-collusive (deterring) effect when the ringleader’s relative evidence is moderate (low). Furthermore, ringleader discrimination may deter collusion if the investigation probability of the antitrust authority is sufficiently high but not too high. In this case, the effect of asymmetry from exclusion — even if profits are redistributed — is stronger than the loss of ringleader evidence for conviction.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
