Agreements can also occur in auction markets, where independent companies coordinate their bids (Bid Rigging). [9] Agreements are illegal in the United States, Canada and most of the EU under antitrust laws, but implicit agreements in the form of tariff leadership and tacit agreements are still ongoing. Several examples of collusion in the United States are: collusion is a fraudulent agreement or secret cooperation between two or more parties in order to restrict open competition by deceiving, deceiving, deceiving or deceiving others of their legal right. Cartels are not always considered illegal. It may be used to achieve purposes prohibited by law; for example, by defrauding or obtaining an unfair business advantage. It is an agreement between companies or individuals, to share a market, to set prices, to limit production or to limit possibilities. [1] These may be “unions, wage agreements, bribes or misrepresentation of the independence of the relationship between the conspiring parties.” [2] From a legal point of view, all acts committed by collusion are considered null and void. [3] Secret agreements are referred to as tacit agreements and are considered legal. Adam Smith, in the wealth of nations, explains that since there are fewer men (business owners), it is easier to talk to serve common interests among stakeholders, such as for example. B the maintenance of low wages, while it is difficult for workers, because of their large numbers, to coordinate to protect their own interests. Therefore, entrepreneurs have a greater advantage over the working class. Nevertheless, according to Adam Smith, the public rarely hears about coordination and cooperation between business owners, as it takes place in informal environments.

[5] Economists and managers have attempted to identify factors that explain why certain companies are more or less likely to be involved in collusion. Some highlighted the role of the regulatory environment[10] and the existence of leniency programs. [11] Others have proposed, based on the literature in criminology and misconduct, that companies conduct a cost-benefit analysis to assess their involvement in collusion. [12] A variant of this traditional theory is the folded demand theory. Companies face a demand curve if other companies, when lowering its price, are expected to follow this example to maintain revenue. If a company raises its price, it is unlikely that its competitors will follow, as they would lose the sales profits they would otherwise get if they keep prices at the previous level. A drop in demand favors potentially over-competitive prices, since each company would benefit less from lower prices, unlike the advantages derived from neoclassical theory and some theoretical models such as Bertrand competition. [8] According to neoclassical pricing theory and game theory, supplier independence imposes minimum prices, increases efficiency and reduces each company`s ability to find prices. [6] However, if all companies cooperate to raise prices, revenue losses are kept to a minimum, as consumers have no alternative options at lower prices and have to choose between what is available. This benefits collaborative businesses, as they generate more revenue at the expense of the company`s efficiency.

[7] In the context of the market economy and competition investigation, agreements take place within a sector when competing undertakings cooperate for their mutual benefit. . . .

Comments are closed.