Ruffled Feathers: The Chicken Cartel in the United States

Q2 Social Sciences Antitrust Bulletin Pub Date : 2023-01-21 DOI:10.1177/0003603X221149333
Dong Li, Dennis L. Weisman
{"title":"Ruffled Feathers: The Chicken Cartel in the United States","authors":"Dong Li, Dennis L. Weisman","doi":"10.1177/0003603X221149333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Allegations of price-fixing by U.S. chicken suppliers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act date back more than a half-century. The methods to facilitate this collusion have evolved over time from conference calls arranged by the National Broiler Marketing Association to more sophisticated methods of information sharing. Amid the highest rate of inflation in nearly forty years and persistent supply-chain bottlenecks as the country emerges from the pandemic, the chicken industry has been singled out by government officials for monopolistic pricing behavior. We examine the mechanism through which the “chicken cartel” was formed and sustained and its harmful effects on consumers. The analysis indicates that as early as 2008 a plan was hatched by U.S. chicken suppliers to collude in fixing the price of chicken. According to one complaint, this collusion, in concert with increased market concentration, raised chicken prices by approximately 50 percent. The associated consumer surplus losses are estimated at $8 to $10 billion annually with cumulative losses over the duration of the cartel ranging upward of $100 billion. Numerous indictments have been handed down and settlements reached, both civil and criminal.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"68 1","pages":"47 - 72"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X221149333","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Allegations of price-fixing by U.S. chicken suppliers in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act date back more than a half-century. The methods to facilitate this collusion have evolved over time from conference calls arranged by the National Broiler Marketing Association to more sophisticated methods of information sharing. Amid the highest rate of inflation in nearly forty years and persistent supply-chain bottlenecks as the country emerges from the pandemic, the chicken industry has been singled out by government officials for monopolistic pricing behavior. We examine the mechanism through which the “chicken cartel” was formed and sustained and its harmful effects on consumers. The analysis indicates that as early as 2008 a plan was hatched by U.S. chicken suppliers to collude in fixing the price of chicken. According to one complaint, this collusion, in concert with increased market concentration, raised chicken prices by approximately 50 percent. The associated consumer surplus losses are estimated at $8 to $10 billion annually with cumulative losses over the duration of the cartel ranging upward of $100 billion. Numerous indictments have been handed down and settlements reached, both civil and criminal.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
皱巴巴的羽毛:美国的鸡肉卡特尔
美国鸡肉供应商违反《谢尔曼法案》第1条操纵价格的指控可以追溯到半个多世纪前。随着时间的推移,促进这种勾结的方法已经从国家肉鸡营销协会安排的电话会议演变为更复杂的信息共享方法。在近四十年来最高的通货膨胀率和随着国家摆脱疫情而持续存在的供应链瓶颈中,鸡肉行业因垄断定价行为而被政府官员点名。我们研究了“鸡肉卡特尔”形成和维持的机制及其对消费者的有害影响。分析表明,早在2008年,美国鸡肉供应商就策划了一项共谋鸡肉价格的计划。根据一份投诉,这种勾结,加上市场集中度的提高,使鸡肉价格上涨了约50%。相关的消费者盈余损失估计每年为80亿至100亿美元,卡特尔期间的累计损失高达1000亿美元。已经提出了许多起诉,并达成了民事和刑事和解。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Antitrust Bulletin
Antitrust Bulletin Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Geographic Market Definition in Commercial Health Insurer Matters: A Unified Approach for Merger Review, Monopolization Claims, and Monopsonization Claims Do EU and U.K. Antitrust “Bite”?: A Hard Look at “Soft” Enforcement and Negotiated Penalty Settlements Wall Street’s Practice of Compelling Confidentiality of Private Underwriting Fees: An Antitrust Violation? Two Challenges for Neo-Brandeisian Antitrust Epic Battles in Two-Sided Markets
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1