Abstract:
The past and current reluctance of firms and individuals to use private enforcement suggests that there are limited incentives for self-help. The key contribution of private enforcement to overall deterrence derives from cases which would not otherwise be brought, not simply because of resource constraints, but also because relevant information would not otherwise have come to light. In terms of revealing such private information, cases initiated and pursued by private litigants add much more to the equation that do cases merely following on from decisions made by competition authorities. In this paper we use a simple model to highlight what features of the private enforcement system promote and hamper the use of these two different types of private enforcement. A key finding is that to encourage new cases, it is essential that private enforcement is quicker than the time it takes to get a decision in a follow-on case.
Downloads: (external link) http://www.ccp.uea.ac.uk/publicfiles/workingpapers/CCP06-9.pdf (application/pdf) Our link check indicates that this URL is bad, the error code is: 500 Can't connect to ccpweb.mgt.uea.ac.uk:80 (connect: timeout) (http://www.ccp.uea.ac.uk/publicfiles/workingpapers/CCP06-9.pdf [302 Found]--> http://ccpweb.mgt.uea.ac.uk/publicfiles/workingpapers/CCP06-9.pdf)
Related works: This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.