为什么人们认为操纵价格是不公平的?关于美国公众态度的法律实证研究

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW Journal of Antitrust Enforcement Pub Date : 2024-03-21 DOI:10.1093/jaenfo/jnae007
Carlos Delvasto, Ruben Acevedo
{"title":"为什么人们认为操纵价格是不公平的?关于美国公众态度的法律实证研究","authors":"Carlos Delvasto, Ruben Acevedo","doi":"10.1093/jaenfo/jnae007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The present article advances the understanding of antitrust law by providing theoretical considerations and empirical results of people’s attitudes towards price fixing, specifically within the context of fairness in US antitrust laws. Attitudes were obtained through experimental surveys on Amazon Mechanical Turk in the USA between 2018 and 2021. The empirical results suggest that perceptions of fairness influence public attitudes towards price fixing. Moreover, consumer reaction to price fixing will depend on how the consumer perceives the rules of fairness underlying the competitive market mechanism and the point used to set prices (dual entitlement theory). Results indicate that perceived outcomes and consequences of market transactions influence respondents’ judgment of price fixing. For example, public attitudes will be more lenient whenever a cost-increasing event outside firms’ control affects firms’ profit. The main implication of these findings is that antitrust authorities should not take for granted that people view price fixing as unfair and therefore consider how fairness considerations play out in their approach when dealing with price-fixing cases. The suggestion is for antitrust authorities to focus corporate compliance programmes on people’s attitudes to improve compliance to prevent cartel agreements.","PeriodicalId":42471,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Why do people think price fixing is unfair? An empirical legal study on public attitudes in the USA\",\"authors\":\"Carlos Delvasto, Ruben Acevedo\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jaenfo/jnae007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The present article advances the understanding of antitrust law by providing theoretical considerations and empirical results of people’s attitudes towards price fixing, specifically within the context of fairness in US antitrust laws. Attitudes were obtained through experimental surveys on Amazon Mechanical Turk in the USA between 2018 and 2021. The empirical results suggest that perceptions of fairness influence public attitudes towards price fixing. Moreover, consumer reaction to price fixing will depend on how the consumer perceives the rules of fairness underlying the competitive market mechanism and the point used to set prices (dual entitlement theory). Results indicate that perceived outcomes and consequences of market transactions influence respondents’ judgment of price fixing. For example, public attitudes will be more lenient whenever a cost-increasing event outside firms’ control affects firms’ profit. The main implication of these findings is that antitrust authorities should not take for granted that people view price fixing as unfair and therefore consider how fairness considerations play out in their approach when dealing with price-fixing cases. The suggestion is for antitrust authorities to focus corporate compliance programmes on people’s attitudes to improve compliance to prevent cartel agreements.\",\"PeriodicalId\":42471,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnae007\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Antitrust Enforcement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jaenfo/jnae007","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文提供了人们对价格垄断的态度的理论考虑和实证结果,特别是在美国反垄断法的公平性背景下,从而推进了对反垄断法的理解。2018年至2021年期间,通过在美国亚马逊Mechanical Turk上进行的实验调查获得了人们的态度。实证结果表明,对公平性的认知会影响公众对价格垄断的态度。此外,消费者对价格垄断的反应将取决于消费者如何看待竞争性市场机制所依据的公平规则以及用于确定价格的要点(双重权利理论)。结果表明,市场交易的结果和后果会影响受访者对操纵价格行为的判断。例如,每当企业控制之外的成本增加事件影响到企业利润时,公众的态度就会更加宽松。这些发现的主要意义在于,反垄断机构不应想当然地认为人们认为操纵价格是不公平的,因此在处理操纵价格案件时,应考虑公平因素如何发挥作用。建议反垄断机构将公司合规计划的重点放在人们的态度上,以改善合规情况,防止卡特尔协议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Why do people think price fixing is unfair? An empirical legal study on public attitudes in the USA
The present article advances the understanding of antitrust law by providing theoretical considerations and empirical results of people’s attitudes towards price fixing, specifically within the context of fairness in US antitrust laws. Attitudes were obtained through experimental surveys on Amazon Mechanical Turk in the USA between 2018 and 2021. The empirical results suggest that perceptions of fairness influence public attitudes towards price fixing. Moreover, consumer reaction to price fixing will depend on how the consumer perceives the rules of fairness underlying the competitive market mechanism and the point used to set prices (dual entitlement theory). Results indicate that perceived outcomes and consequences of market transactions influence respondents’ judgment of price fixing. For example, public attitudes will be more lenient whenever a cost-increasing event outside firms’ control affects firms’ profit. The main implication of these findings is that antitrust authorities should not take for granted that people view price fixing as unfair and therefore consider how fairness considerations play out in their approach when dealing with price-fixing cases. The suggestion is for antitrust authorities to focus corporate compliance programmes on people’s attitudes to improve compliance to prevent cartel agreements.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The journal covers a wide range of enforcement related topics, including: public and private competition law enforcement, cooperation between competition agencies, the promotion of worldwide competition law enforcement, optimal design of enforcement policies, performance measurement, empirical analysis of enforcement policies, combination of functions in the competition agency mandate, and competition agency governance. Other topics include the role of the judiciary in competition enforcement, leniency, cartel prosecution, effective merger enforcement, competition enforcement and human rights, and the regulation of sectors.
期刊最新文献
Considerations of monopsony in merger analysis: The Penguin Random House case Competition policy and the consumer welfare standard The evolution of EU competition law and policy in the pharmaceutical sector: long-lasting impacts of a pandemic A new order for EU merger control in digital markets Fairness and contestability in the provision of software application stores services
×
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