Cited by 69Merger and Competition AnalysisLaw, Economics, and Judicial SystemsDiverse Legal and Medical Studies

The Distortive Effects of Antitrust Fines Based on Revenue

Open access
Bageri, Vasiliki, Katsoulacos, Yannis, Spagnolo, Giancarlo·2013·The Economic Journal

Abstract

In most jurisdictions, antitrust fines are based on affected commerce rather than on collusive profits, and in some others, caps on fines are introduced based on total firm sales rather than on affected commerce. We uncover a number of distortions that these policies generate, propose simple models to characterise their comparative static properties and quantify them with simulations based on market data. We conclude by discussing the obvious need to depart from these distortive rules of thumb that appear to have the potential to substantially reduce social welfare. How competition authorities (CAs) should set fines and how they actually do so in practice is a highly debated issue among antitrust practitioners. In Europe, where fines are often set directly by the CAs, appeal courts have often slashed CAs ’ decisions precisely on the grounds of how they set the fines. An illuminating example is the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) decision in 2011 to cut the fines set by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) for members of the construction recruitment cartel substantially, on the grounds that the ‘wrong ’ measure of affected commerce was used. One reason behind these debates is that not only antitrust regulating CAs but also courts, where in charge, use rules of thumb to set the fines that – although well

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ecoj.12079

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Buccirossi, Paolo & Spagnolo, Giancarlo (2006). "Antitrust Sanctions in the Presence of Leniency Programs", in Concurrences, N. 4. Che, Yeon-Koo and Spier, Katherine (2008). "Strategic Judgement Proofing", RAND Journal of Economics, vol. 39(4), pp. 926-948.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bageri, V., Katsoulacos, Y., & Spagnolo, G.
Affiliations
  • Athens University of Economics and Business (GR)
  • Stockholm School of Economics (SE)
Venue
The Economic Journal
Published
2013-11-01
Volume
123
Issue
572
Pages
F545-F557
ISSN
  • 0013-0133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-0297
OpenAlex
W2171760251
Cited by
69
References
41
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 1
FWCI
17.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Economic Journal (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • Cineca Institutional Research Information System (Tor Vergata University) (submittedVersion)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Economic and Social Research Council (RES – 062‐23‐2211)
  • Swedish Competition Authority
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Merger and Competition Analysis
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Law, Economics, and Judicial Systems
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Diverse Legal and Medical Studies
Keywords
antitrust fines, competition authorities, cartel damages, social welfare (welfare economics), Office of Fair Trading, Competition Appeal Tribunal, comparative statics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review