Does within-tenure experience make you tougher? Evidence from competition law. Ludivine Garside, Paul Grout & Anna Zalewska Public Organisation Conference.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

Your Why Your why is something special and unique for each person, sometimes It may be easier to break it down into different types of goals. Short Term----

Advertisements

193 G 10. G 194 G G 10 G 197 G

CAREER OPPORTUNITY. Why Golden Haven? CAREER OPPORTUNITY.

REWARDING SYSTEM REALISTIC EXAMPLE (1) YOU 1 x 1 = 1 x 10 =10 1 x 1 = 1 x 3 =3 1 x 1 = 1 x 2.75 = x 1 = 1 x 2.50 =2.5 1 x 1 = 1 x 2 =2 1 x 1 = 1.

Direction des Systèmes dObservation 4th VOS-TAG meeting 12/13 April 2007 EUCOS SURFMAR Programme VOS Technical Advisory Group FOURTH MEETING GENEVA, SWIZTHERLAND.

Laos PDR need of LaosIX Alberto Escudero-Pascual Royal Institute of Technology Sweden 1st International.

Doc.: IEEE /0573r0 Submission May 2008 Jon Rosdahl (CSR) Treasurer Report May 08 Date: Authors:

Get IEEE 802® Update 11 Karen Kenney, Assoc. Managing Director, Business Administration For LMSC November Plenary 16 November 2004, San Antonio, TX.

FY Solicitation Requested Funds vs. Council Budget for FY 2007 (Post-Admin Committee Review) January 17, 2006 Province FY07 OngoingFY07 New Council.

1 Alameda Unified School District FY 08/09 2 nd Interim March 10, 2009.

ALLEGHANY HIGH SCHOOL Facility Improvement Plan 8/12/08.

Budget Presentation March Timeline for Budget Development FY 2013FY 2014 Governors Budget $15,503, $15,409,508 House Budget $15,568, $15,420,106.

Created By Sherri Desseau

Created By Sherri Desseau

Governors 2010 May Revise & Districts Proposed Budget June 15, 2010 Steven Lawrence, Ph.D., Superintendent Bryan Richards, Director, Fiscal Services.

Department of State Health Services Legislative Appropriations Request Public Hearing July 20, 2004.

Council for Education Policy, Research and Improvement Council Meeting January 14, 2004 Boca Raton, Florida.

Every student. every classroom. every day Statements of Unaudited Actuals Year End Closing Leon Glaster, CFO Pauline Follansbee, Controller Dr.

The effectiveness of remedial education- addressing enhancement in student performance and retention in a post-1992 university Giorgio Di Pietro Westminster.

Are more experienced experts tougher? Evidence from competition law. Ludivine Garside, Paul Grout & Anna Zalewska 2 March 2006 Centre for Market and Public.

SUMMARY PRODUCTION 3MRP Okt – Des 2012 Opt 1. 2 Fleet Exc OB : 296,787 Bcm Avrg Distc : 900 m Remain IPD : 1,112,000 Bcm 1 Fleet Exc OB : 191,082 Bcm.

We propose to use carbon tax to invest in world capital markets to reduce carbon emissions and to fund a social security benefit for future new born children.

Los Gatos Union School District Unaudited Actuals FY Cynthia Shieh September 9, 2008.

Anchorage Education Association Plan Design Selection Fall 2013.

Sex, love, and religion in adolescent romantic couples. Catherine M. Grello University of Tennessee.

1 Heating and Cooling of Structure Observations by Thermo Imaging Camera during the Cardington Fire Test, January 16, 2003 Pašek J., Svoboda J., Wald.

FY 2009 – FY 2012 Small Business Accomplishments - Dollars and Percent 1 Contract AwardsFY 2009*FY 2010*FY 2011**FY 2012** FY 2013 Goals (Target Dollars)

Disparity of Purchase of Service Dollars at the Regional Centers Report for Consumers Aged 0 to 2, Inclusive.

Securing & Expanding the GATE Programme NATIONAL CONSULTATION Presented by: Senator the Honourable Fazal Karim Minister of Science, Technology and Tertiary.

North Mac CUSD # Budget Presented to the Board of Education August 22, 2012.

CAR Highlights. Balance Sheet All Funds (Page 1) Revenue All Funds (Page 3) Expenditures- General Fund (Page 8) Other Funds (Pages 10-22) Special Education.

Debt Capacity Update. What is our outstanding debt? How much remaining capacity is in our pledged revenues? How does our total debt outstanding and annual.

Lecture 10 Activity-Based Costing Example: The Dialysis Clinic.

Drawing Gear Teeth Spur Gears

Finance 2007 IEEE-Region 4-Jan08 [01] Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers Region 4 – Central USA Finance 2007 e-Meeting - January, 2008 Prepared.

Plumsted Township School District Assessment Results & Initiatives

3670 MAGUIRE BOULEVARD Tax Collector Proposal. Tax Collector Goals Find the best use of Taxpayer Dollars Consolidate the following Separate Operations.

Slovak Water Management Enterprise s.e. The floods valuation and the internal water management at the channels net on VSN III and IV Administrative territory.

CHE Higher Education Budget Recommendation House Ways & Means Committee – January 10, 2011.

Discrete Mathematics Math 6A Homework 3 Solution.

This presentation contains statements that are forward-looking. These statements are based on current expectations and assumptions that are subject to.

Capabilities 1. Discuss the difficulty encountered in finding profitable projects in competitive markets and the importance of the search. 2. Determine.

WHITE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS FY 2009 Proposed Budget Second Public Presentation June 30, 2008 – 9:30 am.

IAPT Conference, Chicago July 30 – August 3, m.jpg.

1 Budget Study Session FY Public Works Department - General Fund April 27, 2011.

MAKING SENSE OF THE CENSUS American Community Survey and Decennial Census Using FactFinder Significant Demographic Signals Barry Bennett Population Programs.

COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOLS Monthly Financial Reports–January 2014 Financial Re-Cap for: Columbus Board of Education Meeting February 18,

COLUMBUS CITY SCHOOLS Monthly Financial Reports–February 2014 Financial Re-Cap for: Columbus Board of Education Meeting March 18,

WHY DID THE US GET INVOLVED IN VIETNAM? Learning Outcomes By the end of the lesson, we will have… … showed off our art skills … produced a timeline showing.

Making your point: debating Voting All school assemblies must be delivered as a rap. NOYES.

Week 2 Computer Programming Gray , Calibri 24

Use of the system  Statistics EUCARIS (Annex 5a & 5b) Use of the system

SAN DIEGO TOURISM MARKETING DISTRICT REPORT OF ACTIVITIES for FY2013 – PART I UPDATE: & Close Out of Initial District City Council Meeting March 5, 2013.

2012 /2013 Tentative Budget Presented to the Mayor and Board of Trustees April 4, 2012 Budget Hearing.

Fiscal Year 2015 Appropriations Steven Crawford Executive Director of CCOSA.

Archaeologists’ Salaries in the UK Introduction This poster presents the advertised salaries of archaeologists working in the United Kingdom between

Windsor Forest High School State of the School Address Mr. Joe Brasfield.

State Lawmaking CE.7c. Questions Which branch of the Virginia state government has the power to pass laws? How does the Virginia General Assembly make.

2nd Grade MATH EDI Lesson Overview

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION, UPDATE Presented By: Mark Langdorf Presented To: Leadership Team Date of Presentation: October 16, 2013.

Campuses of The University of Montana FTE Enrollment & Revenue FY10FY11FY12FY13FY14 Actual Budgeted Resident10,16110,54610,2189,6408,823 WUE

Operating Funds: Unaudited Budget Actual Education Fund $62,768,630$62,430,544 Operations & Mtns $ 6,234,941 $ 5,492,592 Transportation $ 3,192,742.

Florida Atlantic University Update on Legislative Budget.

PUBLIC SCHOOL FINANCE UPDATE January, 2012 Leanne Emm Assistant Commissioner

Presentation to Measure A Bond Citizen Oversight Committee Colleges & Stakeholders Measure A Expenditures Bi-Annual Report Updates to 6/30/2009 Presented.

Budget Update October 6, FY 2012 Presented at Town Hall Meeting 10/22/10.

Minnesota Department of Transportation. Where Do State Aid Funds Come From?

Five-Year Forecast Presentation Kelley Thorpe, Treasurer Presented May 5, 2014.

Student Activity & Program Fee Board A Proposal for a Fee Increase.

Presentation transcript:

Does within-tenure experience make you tougher? Evidence from competition law. Ludivine Garside, Paul Grout & Anna Zalewska Public Organisation Conference 12 th June 2008 Centre for Market and Public Organisation

2 Motivation Data Results

3 Motivation There are many situations where attitudes, perceptions, skills, etc., are responsive to past experience and changing social and workplace environments. May be tempered or fostered by market forces. Where market forces, or their analogues, are more muted then within-tenure experience could potentially have far greater and varied impact (life-tenure of judges). Public officials have weak external competitive forces Judicial discretion v rules

4 Literature on judgements in legal and investigative arenas (De Paulo and Pfeifer (1986) Meissner and Kassin (2002), Kassin and Tong (1999) and Porter, Woodworth and Birt (2000)). Conclusions: Experience and training do not improve the ability to make the right judgement. Experience has a significant impact on the confidence that the subject has in his/her personal judgement Experience increases the likelihood of the subject responding deceit as opposed to truth in experiments.

5 What and why? This study looks if there are within-tenure experience effects on the judges and investigators: –direct economic relevance –based on real world legal cases rather than experiments –use economic factors to deal with the heterogeneity of cases - these economic factors give an additional test

6 Public interest test (not defined - large element of discretion – problem of quality of decision –claim not matter ). Panel both conducted the investigation and made the judgement Track the decisions and experience of individual subjects - separate out cohort effects, individual effects, and age from within-tenure experience - identify off individual change in experience. Unambiguous decision Legal process was virtually identical throughout the period Chairperson of the investigative panel was extremely influential in the process Unique data set

7 Davies et al. (1998, 1999) Ashenfelter et al (1995) Besley and Ghatak (2005) Prendergast (2007) Econ/Gender literature

8 Choice of chairman of investigating panel: Chairman of investigation chosen almost exclusively from Commission Chair or Deputy Chairs Conflict of interest Balanced load Exception would be if a fundamental case arises Experience and complex cases

9 Data Investigations for possible abuse of a monopoly situation, published between Investigation level: –431 company observations, –85 cases –122 company observations with profitability, ( )

10

11

12

13

14 Firm levelCase level Least experienced Second least experienced Second most experienced Most experienced0.78 Least experienced Mid experienced Most experienced

15 Approach Probit Independent cases Firm-level observations cannot be treated as independent – need to account for intra-cluster correlation (at case level and at chairman level)

16 Pseudo R Constant (0.502) (0.563) (0.510) *** (0.544) (0.510) (0.644) (0.462) (0.579) Chair experience3.179** (1.326) 3.309* (0.010) 3.114** (1.374) 3.186** (1.305) 3.431** (1.623) 2.869** (1.231) Gender ratio3.330 ** (1.543) 3.582** (1.638) 3.311** (1.591) 3.252** (1.522) 3.468** (1.632) 2.796* (1.649) 3.345** (1.533) 3.267** (1.543) Market share0.820* (0.446) 0.996** (0.497) 0.838* (0.486) 1.230*** (0.470) 0.799* (0.462) 0.773* (0.455) 0.753* (0.451) 0.840* (0.443) Climate (0.998) * (0.945) (0.985) ** (0.904) (1.013) (1.006) (0.993) (1.000) Two anti-competitive conducts 0.956*** (0.355) 0.996** (0.441) 0.958*** (0.341) 0.969*** (0.339) 0.936** (0.370) 1.036*** (0.344) 1.000*** (0.358) 0.926*** (0.355) Repeated investigation-0.700* (0.425) (0.127) * (0.427) * (0.412) (0.427) * (0.419) * (0.425) * (0.426) Concentration ratio (3 firms) (0.196) Minimum efficient size0.006 (0.100) Market share volatility0.189 (0.189) Dummy (0.393) Dummy *** (0.362) Dummy Labour (0.481) Wogrex (4.259) (Chair experience) ** (4.125) (Chair experience) 1/ *** (0.874) Full company data set

17 Pseudo R Constant (0.719) (0.734) ** (0.788) (0.7016) (0.770) Chair experience3.806*** (1.424) 3.822*** (1.421) 4.730*** (1.394) Gender ratio3.987*** (1.418) 4.007*** (1.466) 3.726*** (1.393) 4.014*** (1.424) 3.898*** (1.417) Market share of investigated firm1.126** (0.508) 1.113** (0.520) 1.428*** (0.526) 1.090** (0.511) 1.125** (0.509) Climate-1.900** (-0.870) ** (0.918) *** (0.789) ** (0.877) ** (0.868) Two anti-competitive conducts1.586*** (0.498) 1.594*** (0.525) 1.278** (0.506) 1.650*** (0.497) 1.552*** (0.501) Repeated investigation-0.751* (0.437)-0.755* (0.448) (0.412)-0.780* (0.436)-0.757* (0.435) Monopoly pricing (0.514) (0.521) (0.502) (0.521) (0.514) Discriminatory pricing (0.699) (0.643) (0.643) (0.703) (0.697) Collusive pricing (0.650) (0.709)0.365 (0.643) (0.647) (0.648) Predatory pricing1.015 (0.120)1.012 (0.649)1.065 (0.672)1.074 (0.663)0.981 (0.643) Vertical integration0.198 (0.631) (0.668)0.328 (0.602)0.205 (0.635)0.165 (0.624) Tie in sales (0.725) (0.728) (0.723) (0.720) (0.725) Exclusive purchasing (0.709) (0.709) (0.617) (0.718) (0.704) Resale price maintenance (0.594) (0.584) (0.553) (0.593) (0.597) Dummy (0.437) Dummy *** (0.363) (Chair experience) ** (4.302) (Chair experience) 1/ *** (0.978)

18 Pseudo R Constant ** (0.717) ** (0.776) ** (0.719) (0.893) * (0.976) (0.914) Chair experience 5.377** (2.234) 5.666** (2.238) 5.448** (2.275) 5.317** (2.523) 5.627** (2.570) 5.258** (2.558) Gender ratio 3.996** (1.625) 4.027** (1.646) 4.063** (1.655) 3.981** (1.757) 3.961** (1.767) 4.173** (1.778) Market share of the biggest investigated firm 2.421*** (0.864) 2.436*** (0.863) 2.405*** (0.869) 3.066*** (1.044) 3.059*** (1.040) 3.000*** (1.055) Climate (0.977) (1.008) (1.090) (1.068) (1.086) (1.196) Two anti-competitive conducts 1.582*** (0.532) 1.591*** (0.542) 1.574*** (0.531) 2.279*** (0.718) 2.217*** (0.719) 2.350*** (0.734) Repeated investigation (0.413) (0.421) (0.420) (0.443) (0.444) (0.443) Dummy (0.398) (0.424) Dummy (0.386) (0.443) Monopoly pricing (0.555) (0.559) (0.561) Discriminatory pricing (0.621) (0.640) (0.643) Collusive pricing (0.641) (0.665) (0.716) Vertical integration (0.641) (0.643) (0.676) Tie in sales (0.637) (0.632) (0.676) Exclusive purchasing (0.580) (0.424) (0.595) Case data set

19 dy/dxmean Chair experience Gender ratio Market share Climate Two anti-competitive conducts Repeated investigation Predicted value = 0.66

20 Pseudo R Constant (1.789) (1.737) (2.279) (2.260) Chair experience 3.284** (1.473) 3.519** (1.567) Gender ratio 3.267** (1.545) 3.171** (1.506) 4.508*** (1.422) 4.308*** (1.468) Market share of investigated firm 0.828* (0.446) 0.792* (0..464) 1.096** (0.513) 1.133** (0.522) Climate (1.002) (0.997) ** (0.853) ** (0.889) Two anti-competitive conducts 0.939** (0.372) 1.016*** (0.375) (0.564) 0.928* (0.556) Repeated investigation * (0.422) ** (0.422) * (0.432) ** (0.428) Age (0.028) (0.025) (0.0382) (0.037) Monopoly pricing (0.717) (0.734) Discriminatory pricing (0.666) (0.669) Collusive pricing (0.716) (0.726) Predatory pricing 1.977*** (0.700) 2.229*** (0.696) Vertical integration 1.161* (0.699) (0.718) Tie in sales (0.612) (0.642) Exclusive purchasing (0.622) (0.674) Resale price maintenance (0.654) (0.037)

21 Pseudo R Constant (0.501) (0.672) ** (0.738) (0.729) Chair experience 3.802*** (1.434) 7.338*** (2.151) 7.486*** (2.148) 7.332*** (2.154) Gender ratio 3.591** (1.645) 5.135*** (1.417) 4.774*** (1.422) 5.096*** (1.447) Market share 0.855* (0.441) 0.951* (0.513) 1.252** (0.518) 0.991* (0.531) Climate (1.006) ** (0.847) *** (0.772) ** (0.853) Two anti-competitive conducts 1.018*** (0.351) 1.729*** (0.494) 1.459*** (0.503) 1.708*** (0.516) Repeated investigation (0.409) (0.413) (0.398) (0.416) Legal background (0.310) ** (0.471) * (0.473) ** (0.472) Monopoly pricing insignificant Discriminatory pricing insignificant Collusive pricing insignificant Predatory pricing insignificant Vertical integration insignificant Tie in sales insignificant Exclusive purchasing insignificant Resale price maintenance ** (0.791) ** (0.733) ** (0.787) Dummy *** (0.361) Dummy (0.422)

22 No of observations no DK 381 no DK Pseudo R Constant (0.429) (0.528) (0.658) (0.478) ** 0.717) * (0.898) (0.689) Chair experience 3.104** (1.425) 3.314*** (1.214) 7.536*** (2.029) 3.948** (1.570) 5.593** (2.265) 5.600** (2.575) 7.678*** (2.068) Gender ratio 2.232* (1.343) 3.376** (1.357) 3.311* (1.699) 3.245* (1.835) 3.213** (1.488) Market share (0.479) (0.481) 0.975* (0.502) 1.674*** (0.636) 2.466*** (0.864) 3.158*** (1.045) 1.060** (0.511) Climate * (0.744) (0.958) ** (0.761) (0.830) (0.982) (1.072) ** (0.750) Two anti-competitive conducts 0.655* (0.348) 0.875** (0.411) 1.337*** (0.476) 1.196*** (0.366) 1.603*** (0.536) 2.332*** (0.723) 1.358*** (0.481) Repeated investigation (0.391) * (0.416) (0.409) (0.381) (0.421) (0.452) (0.427) Monopoly pricingInsignificant Discriminatory pricing (0.617) * 0.653) (0.665) Collusive pricing Insignificant Predatory pricing 1.191** (0.536) 1.284** (0.564) Vertical integration Insignificant Tie in sales Insignificant Exclusive purchasing Insignificant Resale price maintenance * (0.669) (0.721) Dummy D. Kingsmill 2.013** (0.927) 1.434*** (0.418) 2.036*** (0.621) Legal background *** (0.415) *** (0.421) Gender

23 Pseudo R Constant ** (0.601) ** (0.562) *** (0.567) ** (0.601) ** (0.604) ** (0.622) Chair experience 3.079** (1.468) 3.358** (1.345) 2.647* (1.583) 3.651*** (1.421) 4.453*** (1.296) 4.860*** (1.356) Gender ratio 3.629* (1.862) 3.252* (1.823) 4.268** (1.881) 3.702** (1.884) 3.577* (1.866) 3.956** (1.807) Market share 1.992*** (0.742) 1.946*** (0.753) 2.112*** (0.741) 1.909** (0.758) 2.300*** (0.825) 2.278*** (0.851) Climate (1.272) (1.280) ( ) * (1.337) ** (1.371) ** (1.400) Two anti-competitive conducts 1.578*** (0.375) 1.493*** (0.419) 1.974*** (0.544) 1.572*** (0.388) 1.620*** (0.357) 1.687*** (0.367) Repeated investigation ** (0.574) *** (0.589) * (0.662) ** (0.590) ** (0.589) ** (0.589) Dummy (0.380) Dummy * (0.523) ROCE 0.359* (0.217) 0.479** (0.230) (0.278) Monopoly pricing ** (0.349) *** (0.428) ROCE x Monopoly pricing 1.146** (0.479)

24 Pseudo R R R Constant (0.517) (0.750) 0.332** (0.165) 0.464* (0.263) Chair experience 3.386** (1.543) 5.224** (2.105) 0.955** (0.427) 1.558** (0.638) Gender ratio 3.406** (1.531) 4.088*** (1.405) 1.035* (0.522) (0.562) Market share 0.858* (0.472) 1.154** (0.502) 0.245* (0.145) (0.154) Climate (0.908) *** (0.807) (0.354) (0.318) Two anti-competitive conducts 1.001*** (0.342) 1.301** (0.522) 0.275*** (0.096) 0.259** (0.119) Repeated investigation (0.416) (0.434) (0.149) * (0.158) Dummy J. Le Quesne (0.658) ** (0.648) All chairmen dummies Dummy A.Roskill (0.429) (0.573) Monopoly pricing insignificant Discriminatory pricing insignificant Collusive pricing insignificant Predatory pricing insignificant Vertical integration insignificant Tie in sales insignificant Exclusive purchasing insignificant Resale price maintenance insignificant Full data set

25 No of observations Pseudo R Constant *** (0.717) ** (0.647) (0.539) (0.730) Chair experience 5.377*** (2.234) 5.317** (2.133) 3.179*** (1.163) 3.806*** (1.224) Gender ratio 3.996** (1.625) 3.981** (1.905) 3.330** (1.485) 3.987*** (1.510) Market share 2.421*** (0.864) 3.066*** (0.800) 0.820* (0.464) 1.126** (0.508) Climate (0.977) (1.106) (1.025) ** (0.925) Two anti-competitive conducts 1.582*** (0.532) 2.279*** (0.603) 0.956** (0.394) 1.586*** (0.568) Repeated investigation (0.413) (0.496) * (0.418) (0.473) Monopoly pricing * (0.468) (0.464) Discriminatory pricing (0.695) (0.683) Collusive pricing (0.563) (0.636) Predatory pricing 1.015* (0.590) Vertical integration * (0.426) (0.465) Tie in sales (0.390) (0.682) Exclusive purchasing (0.494) (0.726) Resale price maintenance (0.524) Clustered by chairman

26 No of observations 431 Pseudo R Constant (0.507) (0.665) (0.398) (0.697) Chair experience 3.743*** (1.326) 6.591*** (1.939) Gender ratio 3.097** (1.600) 3.674*** (1.360) 2.858* (1.515) 3.116** (1.421) Market share of investigated firm (0.450) (0.521) (0.467) 0.972* (0.520) Climate (0.989) ** (0.787) (0.964) ** (0.869) Two anti-competitive conducts 1.076*** (0.353) 1.147** (0.545) 1.104*** (0.354) 0.913* (0.495) Repeated investigation * (0.436) ** (0.402) ** (0.450) ** (0.409) Monopoly pricing (0.658) (0.679) Discriminatory pricing (0.628) (0.664) Collusive pricing (0.635) (0.663) Predatory pricing 1.622* (0.922) (0.805) Vertical integration (0.634) (0.677) Tie in sales (0.647) (0.625) Exclusive purchasing (0.577) (0.589) Resale price maintenance (0.681) (0.579) CC chairman (0.377) ** (0.472) (0.373) * (0.360)

27 Conclusions Reject sample selection Small hint of career concerns Gender may also matter Within-tenure experience matters Implications for precedent/rules v reason Beneficial or not?

28