Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Collusion often takes place within an oligopoly market structure, where there are few firms and agreements that have significant impacts on the entire market or industry. To differentiate from a cartel , collusive agreements between parties may not be explicit; however, the implications of cartels and collusion are the same.
Collusion among firms in an oligopoly market structure occurs where there are express or tacit agreements between firms to follow a particular price structure in relation to particular products (for homogenous products) or particular transaction or product classes [clarification needed] (for heterogeneous products). [10]
Tacit collusion is a collusion between competitors who do not explicitly exchange information but achieve an agreement about coordination of conduct. [1] There are two types of tacit collusion: concerted action and conscious parallelism .
The oligopoly considers price cuts to be a dangerous strategy. Businesses depend on each other. Under this market structure, the differentiation of products may or may not exist. [9] The product they sell may or may not be differentiated and there are barriers to entry: natural, cost, market size or dissuasive strategies.
An oligopoly may engage in collusion, either tacit or overt to exercise market power and manipulate prices to control demand and revenue for a collection of firms. A group of firms that explicitly agree to affect market price or output is called a cartel , with the organization of petroleum-exporting countries ( OPEC ) being one of the most ...
As a result, industries with high barriers to entry often contain a monopoly or oligopoly with dominant power in terms of price. This dominance allows them to charge a higher price or, if other firms join the market, to use their market power and cash flow to lower prices, beating out the new competition. [10]
Neelie Kroes said she was "very disappointed" that the collusion took place at the very highest (boardroom) level. She added, Heineken, Grolsch, Bavaria and InBev tried to cover their tracks by using code names and abbreviations for secret meetings to carve up the market for beer sold to supermarkets, hotels, restaurants and cafes.
In 1982 the U.S. Department of Justice Merger Guidelines introduced the SSNIP test as a new method for defining markets and for measuring market power directly. In the EU it was used for the first time in the Nestlé/Perrier case in 1992 and has been officially recognized by the European Commission in its "Commission's Notice for the Definition of the Relevant Market" in 1997.