Green antitrust conundrum: Collusion with social goals

Recent antitrust regulations in several countries have granted exemptions for collusion aimed at achieving environmental goals. Firms can apply for exemptions if collusion helps to develop or to implement costly clean technology, particularly in sectors like renewable energy, where capital costs are...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Hauptverfasser: Hashimzade, Nigar, Hatsor, Limor, Jelnov, Artyom
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext bestellen
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue
container_start_page
container_title
container_volume
creator Hashimzade, Nigar
Hatsor, Limor
Jelnov, Artyom
description Recent antitrust regulations in several countries have granted exemptions for collusion aimed at achieving environmental goals. Firms can apply for exemptions if collusion helps to develop or to implement costly clean technology, particularly in sectors like renewable energy, where capital costs are high and economies of scale are significant. However, if the cost of the green transition is unknown to the competition regulator, firms might exploit the exemption by fixing prices higher than necessary. The regulator faces the decision of whether to permit collusion and whether to commission an investigation of potential price fixing, which incurs costs. We fully characterise the equilibria in this scenario that depend on the regulator's belief about the high cost of green transition. If the belief is high enough, collusion will be allowed. We also identify conditions under which a regulator's commitment to always investigate price fixing is preferable to making discretionary decisions.
doi_str_mv 10.48550/arxiv.2411.06095
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>arxiv_GOX</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_arxiv_primary_2411_06095</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2411_06095</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-arxiv_primary_2411_060953</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYJA0NNAzsTA1NdBPLKrILNMzMjE01DMwM7A05WQwcy9KTc1TSMwrySwpKi0uUUjOzyvNSykqzbVScM7PySktzszPUyjPLMlQKM5PzkzMUUjPT8wp5mFgTQNSqbxQmptB3s01xNlDF2xDfEFRZm5iUWU8yKZ4sE3GhFUAANa4M3c</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Green antitrust conundrum: Collusion with social goals</title><source>arXiv.org</source><creator>Hashimzade, Nigar ; Hatsor, Limor ; Jelnov, Artyom</creator><creatorcontrib>Hashimzade, Nigar ; Hatsor, Limor ; Jelnov, Artyom</creatorcontrib><description>Recent antitrust regulations in several countries have granted exemptions for collusion aimed at achieving environmental goals. Firms can apply for exemptions if collusion helps to develop or to implement costly clean technology, particularly in sectors like renewable energy, where capital costs are high and economies of scale are significant. However, if the cost of the green transition is unknown to the competition regulator, firms might exploit the exemption by fixing prices higher than necessary. The regulator faces the decision of whether to permit collusion and whether to commission an investigation of potential price fixing, which incurs costs. We fully characterise the equilibria in this scenario that depend on the regulator's belief about the high cost of green transition. If the belief is high enough, collusion will be allowed. We also identify conditions under which a regulator's commitment to always investigate price fixing is preferable to making discretionary decisions.</description><identifier>DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2411.06095</identifier><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024-11</creationdate><rights>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0</rights><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>228,230,780,885</link.rule.ids><linktorsrc>$$Uhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2411.06095$$EView_record_in_Cornell_University$$FView_record_in_$$GCornell_University$$Hfree_for_read</linktorsrc><backlink>$$Uhttps://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2411.06095$$DView paper in arXiv$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hashimzade, Nigar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hatsor, Limor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jelnov, Artyom</creatorcontrib><title>Green antitrust conundrum: Collusion with social goals</title><description>Recent antitrust regulations in several countries have granted exemptions for collusion aimed at achieving environmental goals. Firms can apply for exemptions if collusion helps to develop or to implement costly clean technology, particularly in sectors like renewable energy, where capital costs are high and economies of scale are significant. However, if the cost of the green transition is unknown to the competition regulator, firms might exploit the exemption by fixing prices higher than necessary. The regulator faces the decision of whether to permit collusion and whether to commission an investigation of potential price fixing, which incurs costs. We fully characterise the equilibria in this scenario that depend on the regulator's belief about the high cost of green transition. If the belief is high enough, collusion will be allowed. We also identify conditions under which a regulator's commitment to always investigate price fixing is preferable to making discretionary decisions.</description><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>GOX</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYJA0NNAzsTA1NdBPLKrILNMzMjE01DMwM7A05WQwcy9KTc1TSMwrySwpKi0uUUjOzyvNSykqzbVScM7PySktzszPUyjPLMlQKM5PzkzMUUjPT8wp5mFgTQNSqbxQmptB3s01xNlDF2xDfEFRZm5iUWU8yKZ4sE3GhFUAANa4M3c</recordid><startdate>20241109</startdate><enddate>20241109</enddate><creator>Hashimzade, Nigar</creator><creator>Hatsor, Limor</creator><creator>Jelnov, Artyom</creator><scope>ADEOX</scope><scope>GOX</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20241109</creationdate><title>Green antitrust conundrum: Collusion with social goals</title><author>Hashimzade, Nigar ; Hatsor, Limor ; Jelnov, Artyom</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-arxiv_primary_2411_060953</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hashimzade, Nigar</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Hatsor, Limor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jelnov, Artyom</creatorcontrib><collection>arXiv Economics</collection><collection>arXiv.org</collection></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext_linktorsrc</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hashimzade, Nigar</au><au>Hatsor, Limor</au><au>Jelnov, Artyom</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Green antitrust conundrum: Collusion with social goals</atitle><date>2024-11-09</date><risdate>2024</risdate><abstract>Recent antitrust regulations in several countries have granted exemptions for collusion aimed at achieving environmental goals. Firms can apply for exemptions if collusion helps to develop or to implement costly clean technology, particularly in sectors like renewable energy, where capital costs are high and economies of scale are significant. However, if the cost of the green transition is unknown to the competition regulator, firms might exploit the exemption by fixing prices higher than necessary. The regulator faces the decision of whether to permit collusion and whether to commission an investigation of potential price fixing, which incurs costs. We fully characterise the equilibria in this scenario that depend on the regulator's belief about the high cost of green transition. If the belief is high enough, collusion will be allowed. We also identify conditions under which a regulator's commitment to always investigate price fixing is preferable to making discretionary decisions.</abstract><doi>10.48550/arxiv.2411.06095</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext_linktorsrc
identifier DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2411.06095
ispartof
issn
language eng
recordid cdi_arxiv_primary_2411_06095
source arXiv.org
title Green antitrust conundrum: Collusion with social goals
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-23T14%3A52%3A06IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-arxiv_GOX&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Green%20antitrust%20conundrum:%20Collusion%20with%20social%20goals&rft.au=Hashimzade,%20Nigar&rft.date=2024-11-09&rft_id=info:doi/10.48550/arxiv.2411.06095&rft_dat=%3Carxiv_GOX%3E2411_06095%3C/arxiv_GOX%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true