消费者对牛肉价格的担忧

Q2 Social Sciences Antitrust Bulletin Pub Date : 2023-01-12 DOI:10.1177/0003603X221149366
R. Blair
{"title":"消费者对牛肉价格的担忧","authors":"R. Blair","doi":"10.1177/0003603X221149366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There have been allegations that the dominant meatpackers have conspired to raise beef prices in violation of §1 of the Sherman Act. In this article, I examine the market structure and find it to be conducive to collusion, which may be tacit or overt. The article analyzes the allegations of collusion in a partial conspiracy model. The empirical evidence appears to be consistent with the implications of the theory. The article also considers evidentiary problems for the plaintiffs as well as the pursuit of private damages and public sanctions.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"68 1","pages":"107 - 116"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Consumers’ Beef about Beef Prices\",\"authors\":\"R. Blair\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0003603X221149366\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There have been allegations that the dominant meatpackers have conspired to raise beef prices in violation of §1 of the Sherman Act. In this article, I examine the market structure and find it to be conducive to collusion, which may be tacit or overt. The article analyzes the allegations of collusion in a partial conspiracy model. The empirical evidence appears to be consistent with the implications of the theory. The article also considers evidentiary problems for the plaintiffs as well as the pursuit of private damages and public sanctions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antitrust Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"107 - 116\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-12\",\"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/10.1177/0003603X221149366\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X221149366","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

摘要

有指控称,占主导地位的肉类包装商密谋提高牛肉价格,违反了《谢尔曼法案》第1条。在这篇文章中,我考察了市场结构,发现它有利于共谋,共谋可能是隐性的,也可能是显性的。文章采用部分阴谋模型分析了共谋指控。经验证据似乎与该理论的含义一致。该条还考虑了原告的证据问题以及寻求私人损害赔偿和公共制裁的问题。
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
The Consumers’ Beef about Beef Prices
There have been allegations that the dominant meatpackers have conspired to raise beef prices in violation of §1 of the Sherman Act. In this article, I examine the market structure and find it to be conducive to collusion, which may be tacit or overt. The article analyzes the allegations of collusion in a partial conspiracy model. The empirical evidence appears to be consistent with the implications of the theory. The article also considers evidentiary problems for the plaintiffs as well as the pursuit of private damages and public sanctions.
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
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