學術產出-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 寬恕政策實施之三階段賽局有效性分析
The Effectiveness of the Leniency Policy, a Three-stage Subgame Analysis作者 康家寧
Kong, Chia-Ning貢獻者 王智賢
Wang, Jue-Shyan
康家寧
Kong, Chia-Ning關鍵詞 寬恕政策
反托拉斯
聯合行為
子賽局完全均衡
Leniency policy
Antitrust
Collusion
Subgame perfect equilibrium日期 2018 上傳時間 18-Jul-2018 11:11:17 (UTC+8) 摘要 本研究主要針對廠商的聯合行為及寬恕政策實施有效性，進行二階段與三階 段賽局分析，並根據分析結果提出政策建議。藉由將廠商是否因實施寬恕政策而 選擇聯合加入第一階段，得出在三階段模型下，執法機構調查成功機率與開始調 查前第一家告發廠商之罰款減免比例越高時，政策成效越佳且具高度穩定性;而 調查開始後之罰款減免不影響政策實施之成效。另外，比起僅第一家告發廠商可 獲得罰款減免，若第二家廠商亦可獲得罰款減免時，其寬恕政策申請之可能性相 對較高。再者，當二階段基本模型與三階段模型罰款減免之和相同時，兩模型之 結果相等。最後，當將二模型應用至美國、台灣、歐盟及日本四個國家或經濟體 時，若以政策有效性以及申請之可能性為判斷依據，我們得出日本制定的政策優 於或無異於歐盟的政策，而歐盟政策又優於美國和台灣的政策。
This paper mainly focuses on the effectiveness of the leniency policy which makes cartel members spontaneously report to the enforcement. Through extending the models of Silbye (2012) and Wang et al. (2016) by adding the first stage, either the firms collude or not, to the framework, this paper explores two theoretical models, a two-stage and a three-stage subgames, to investigate leniency policy. The result shows that during the post-investigation, the higher the rate of successful investigation and fine reduction of the first granted firm are, the more effective and stable the policy is. In addition, the fine immunity or reduction rate of per-investigation has no effect on the effectiveness of the policy. Moreover, when the sum of the fine reduction rates of the two-stage model is the same as the three-stage model, the result will be the same. Finally, we apply these two models to the policy of United States, Taiwan, European Union, and Japan. If we take the effectiveness and the possibility of the policies into consideration, we find that Japan’s leniency policy is at least as good as E.U.’s, which is better than U.S. and Taiwan’s policy.參考文獻 王智賢，侯文婷與林玫吟 (2016)，「聯合行為寬恕政策之跨國比較」，《社會科學論叢》，10(1)，65-87。王銘勇 (2006)，「聯合行為寬恕減免責任條款之研究」，《公平交易季刊》，14(1)，75-133。王銘勇 (2017)，「公平交易法寬恕政策與檢舉獎金辦法之分析與檢討」，《公平交易季刊》，25(3)，127-176。楊銘宏 (2008)，《卡特爾規範之研究—以寬恕政策為中心》，中原大學財經法律研究所碩士論文。顏廷棟 (2008)，「寬恕政策實施子法之研究」，《公平交易季刊》，16(4)，67-115。顏廷棟 (2012)，「聯合行為之執法檢討與展望」，《公平交易季刊》，20(4)，1-52。Blum, Ulrich, Nicole Steinat, and Michael Veltins (2008), “On the Rationale of Leniency Programs: A Game-theoretical Analysis,” European Journal of Law and Economics, 25(3), 209-229.Bigoni, Maria, Sven-Olof Fridolfsson, Chloé Le Coq, and Giancarlo Spagnolo (2012), “Fines, Leniency, and Rewards in Antitrust,” The RAND Journal of Economics, 43(2), 368-390.Brenner, Steffen (2009), “An Empirical Study of the European Corporate Leniency Program,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27(6), 639-645.Choi, Yun Jeong and Kyoung Soo Hahn (2014), “How Does a Corporate Leniency Program Affect Cartel Stability? Empirical Evidence from Korea,” Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 10(4), 883-907.Ellis, J. Christopher and Wesley W. Wilson (2001), “What Doesn`t Kill us Makes us Stronger: An Analysis of Corporate Leniency Policy,” University of Oregon.Hamaguchi, Yasuyo, Toshiji Kawagoe, and Aiko Shibata (2009), “Group Size Effects on Cartel Formation and the Enforcement Power of Leniency Programs,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27(2), 145-165.Harrington, E. Joseph, Jr. (2006) “Corporate Leniency Programs and the Role of the Antitrust Authority in Detecting Collusion,” Competition Policy Research Center Discussion Paper, CPDP-18-E.Harrington, E. Joseph, Jr. and Myong-Hun Chang (2015), “When Can We Expect a Corporate Leniency Program to Result in Fewer Cartels?” The Journal of Law and Economics, 58(2), 417-449.Hinloopen, Jeroen and Adriaan R. Soetevent (2008), “Laboratory Evidence on the Effectiveness of Corporate Leniency Programs,” The RAND Journal of Economics, 39(2), 607-616.Miller, H. Nathen (2009), “Strategic Leniency and Cartel Enforcement,” American Economic Review, 99(3), 750-768.Motta, Massimo and Michele Polo (2003), “Leniency Programs and Cartel Prosecution,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(3), 347-379.Park, Sangwon (2014), “The Effect of Leniency Programs on Endogenous Collusion,” Economics Letters, 122(2), 326-330.Silbye, Frederik (2012), “A Note on Antitrust Damages and Leniency Programs,” European Journal of Law and Economics, 33(3), 691-699.Stephan, Andreas (2009), “An Empirical Assessment of the European Leniency Notice,” Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 5(3), 537-561. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
財政學系
105255008資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105255008 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 王智賢 zh_TW dc.contributor.advisor Wang, Jue-Shyan en_US dc.contributor.author (Authors) 康家寧 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Kong, Chia-Ning en_US dc.creator (作者) 康家寧 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Kong, Chia-Ning en_US dc.date (日期) 2018 en_US dc.date.accessioned 18-Jul-2018 11:11:17 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 18-Jul-2018 11:11:17 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 18-Jul-2018 11:11:17 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G0105255008 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/118742 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 財政學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 105255008 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 本研究主要針對廠商的聯合行為及寬恕政策實施有效性，進行二階段與三階 段賽局分析，並根據分析結果提出政策建議。藉由將廠商是否因實施寬恕政策而 選擇聯合加入第一階段，得出在三階段模型下，執法機構調查成功機率與開始調 查前第一家告發廠商之罰款減免比例越高時，政策成效越佳且具高度穩定性;而 調查開始後之罰款減免不影響政策實施之成效。另外，比起僅第一家告發廠商可 獲得罰款減免，若第二家廠商亦可獲得罰款減免時，其寬恕政策申請之可能性相 對較高。再者，當二階段基本模型與三階段模型罰款減免之和相同時，兩模型之 結果相等。最後，當將二模型應用至美國、台灣、歐盟及日本四個國家或經濟體 時，若以政策有效性以及申請之可能性為判斷依據，我們得出日本制定的政策優 於或無異於歐盟的政策，而歐盟政策又優於美國和台灣的政策。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This paper mainly focuses on the effectiveness of the leniency policy which makes cartel members spontaneously report to the enforcement. Through extending the models of Silbye (2012) and Wang et al. (2016) by adding the first stage, either the firms collude or not, to the framework, this paper explores two theoretical models, a two-stage and a three-stage subgames, to investigate leniency policy. The result shows that during the post-investigation, the higher the rate of successful investigation and fine reduction of the first granted firm are, the more effective and stable the policy is. In addition, the fine immunity or reduction rate of per-investigation has no effect on the effectiveness of the policy. Moreover, when the sum of the fine reduction rates of the two-stage model is the same as the three-stage model, the result will be the same. Finally, we apply these two models to the policy of United States, Taiwan, European Union, and Japan. If we take the effectiveness and the possibility of the policies into consideration, we find that Japan’s leniency policy is at least as good as E.U.’s, which is better than U.S. and Taiwan’s policy. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 前言 1第二章 文獻探討 3第三章 模型設定 7第一節 二階段基本模型 7第二節 三階段模型 15第四章 二階段與三階段模型比較 30第五章 各國模型比較 37第六章 結論與建議 43 zh_TW dc.format.extent 1201488 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0105255008 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 寬恕政策 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 反托拉斯 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 聯合行為 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 子賽局完全均衡 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) Leniency policy en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Antitrust en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Collusion en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) Subgame perfect equilibrium en_US dc.title (題名) 寬恕政策實施之三階段賽局有效性分析 zh_TW dc.title (題名) The Effectiveness of the Leniency Policy, a Three-stage Subgame Analysis en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 王智賢，侯文婷與林玫吟 (2016)，「聯合行為寬恕政策之跨國比較」，《社會科學論叢》，10(1)，65-87。王銘勇 (2006)，「聯合行為寬恕減免責任條款之研究」，《公平交易季刊》，14(1)，75-133。王銘勇 (2017)，「公平交易法寬恕政策與檢舉獎金辦法之分析與檢討」，《公平交易季刊》，25(3)，127-176。楊銘宏 (2008)，《卡特爾規範之研究—以寬恕政策為中心》，中原大學財經法律研究所碩士論文。顏廷棟 (2008)，「寬恕政策實施子法之研究」，《公平交易季刊》，16(4)，67-115。顏廷棟 (2012)，「聯合行為之執法檢討與展望」，《公平交易季刊》，20(4)，1-52。Blum, Ulrich, Nicole Steinat, and Michael Veltins (2008), “On the Rationale of Leniency Programs: A Game-theoretical Analysis,” European Journal of Law and Economics, 25(3), 209-229.Bigoni, Maria, Sven-Olof Fridolfsson, Chloé Le Coq, and Giancarlo Spagnolo (2012), “Fines, Leniency, and Rewards in Antitrust,” The RAND Journal of Economics, 43(2), 368-390.Brenner, Steffen (2009), “An Empirical Study of the European Corporate Leniency Program,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27(6), 639-645.Choi, Yun Jeong and Kyoung Soo Hahn (2014), “How Does a Corporate Leniency Program Affect Cartel Stability? Empirical Evidence from Korea,” Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 10(4), 883-907.Ellis, J. Christopher and Wesley W. Wilson (2001), “What Doesn`t Kill us Makes us Stronger: An Analysis of Corporate Leniency Policy,” University of Oregon.Hamaguchi, Yasuyo, Toshiji Kawagoe, and Aiko Shibata (2009), “Group Size Effects on Cartel Formation and the Enforcement Power of Leniency Programs,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 27(2), 145-165.Harrington, E. Joseph, Jr. (2006) “Corporate Leniency Programs and the Role of the Antitrust Authority in Detecting Collusion,” Competition Policy Research Center Discussion Paper, CPDP-18-E.Harrington, E. Joseph, Jr. and Myong-Hun Chang (2015), “When Can We Expect a Corporate Leniency Program to Result in Fewer Cartels?” The Journal of Law and Economics, 58(2), 417-449.Hinloopen, Jeroen and Adriaan R. Soetevent (2008), “Laboratory Evidence on the Effectiveness of Corporate Leniency Programs,” The RAND Journal of Economics, 39(2), 607-616.Miller, H. Nathen (2009), “Strategic Leniency and Cartel Enforcement,” American Economic Review, 99(3), 750-768.Motta, Massimo and Michele Polo (2003), “Leniency Programs and Cartel Prosecution,” International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21(3), 347-379.Park, Sangwon (2014), “The Effect of Leniency Programs on Endogenous Collusion,” Economics Letters, 122(2), 326-330.Silbye, Frederik (2012), “A Note on Antitrust Damages and Leniency Programs,” European Journal of Law and Economics, 33(3), 691-699.Stephan, Andreas (2009), “An Empirical Assessment of the European Leniency Notice,” Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 5(3), 537-561. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/THE.NCCU.PF.006.2018.F07 -
