Rules, Communication and Collusion: Narrative Evidence from the Sugar Institute Case

David Genesove, Wallace P Mullin

Research output: Working paper/preprintWorking paper

Abstract

Detailed notes on weekly meetings of the sugar refining cartel show how communication helps firms collude, and so highlight the deficiencies in the current formal theory of collusion. The Sugar Institute did not fix prices or output. Prices were increased by homogenizing business practices to make price cutting more transparent. Meetings were used to interpret and adapt the agreement, coordinate on jointly profitable actions, ensure unilateral actions were not misconstrued as cheating, and determine whether cheating had occurred. In contrast to established theories, cheating did occur, but sparked only limited retaliation, partly due to the contractual relations with selling agents.
Original languageEnglish
Place of PublicationCambridge, Mass
PublisherNational Bureau of Economic Research
Number of pages62
DOIs
StatePublished - 2001

Publication series

NameNBER working paper series
PublisherNational Bureau of Economic Research
Volumeno. w8145

Bibliographical note

March 2001.

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Rules, Communication and Collusion: Narrative Evidence from the Sugar Institute Case'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this