By Hung-Hao Chang (National Taiwan University) & D. Daniel Sokol (University of Florida)
We focus on the question of why firms self-regulate to avoid more severe public regulation in the area of antitrust compliance. We distinguish the effects of an antitrust authority’s outreach and enforcement on firms’ adoption of antitrust compliance programs. Furthermore, we examine the mechanism that may drive an antitrust authority’s actions on firms’ decisions to adopt compliance programs. Using a two-year survey of 432 firms drawn from the top three hundred Taiwanese enterprises and applying mediation analysis, we find that “voluntary” self-regulation actions, encouraged by the antitrust authority to promote compliance programs via advocacy, significantly increase the creation of antitrust compliance programs. Moreover, “coercive” actions of the antitrust authority in terms of enforcement are less effective than voluntary actions for firms’ compliance programs creation. Within “coercive” actions, large fines are more likely to lead to the adoption of antitrust compliance programs relative to other forms of government prosecution.
Featured News
UK’s CMA Investigates Education Software Company for Market Abuse
May 14, 2024 by
CPI
Schumer Urges FTC Caution on Chevron’s $53B Hess Deal Over Gas Price Fears
May 14, 2024 by
CPI
Amazon Urges US Judge to Block FTC Probe into Data Preservation
May 14, 2024 by
CPI
Colorado Makes History: First State to Enact Comprehensive AI Legislation
May 14, 2024 by
CPI
Class Action Settlement Reached in Cheerleading Monopoly
May 14, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Mapping Antitrust onto Digital Ecosystems
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystems and Competition Law: A Law and Political Economy Approach
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Ecosystem Theories of Harm: What is Beyond the Buzzword?
May 9, 2024 by
CPI
Open Ecosystems: Benefits, Challenges, and Implications for Antitrust
May 9, 2024 by
CPI