Ernesto Estrada, Samuel Vazquez, Jul 28, 2013
This document studies bid rigging in public procurement of generic drugs in Mexico. The study is based on the outcomes of a series of public auctions for generic drugs held in 52 different locations between 2003 and 2008. By applying price and market share screenings, we identify many drugs where lowest bids tend to be identical across auctions regardless of winner, location or contract volume; and market shares quickly converge over time. Additionally, bids dropped and the above pattern disappeared after aggressive entry or procurement consolidation occurred. These findings triggered a formal investigation by the Mexican antitrust agency of two of the largest families of drugs: insulin and saline solutions. These collusive patterns and other indirect evidence gathered during the investigation, led to issue a decision by the agency of illegal bid rigging in both cases. This decision was challenged before Mexican courts, which confirmed it.
Cartels can significantly increase prices. For example, Connor (2010) analyzes studies and judicial decisions on 381 cartelized markets worldwide and estimates a long-run median overcharge of 23.3 %. This result has contributed to creating an international consensus to strengthen cartel prosecution.
Because of their secretive nature, competition agencies have focused prosecution efforts on developing cartel detection tools. The most important are leniency programs that promote collaboration of cartel members in exchange for reductions or elimination of sanctions. Other important sources of detection are complaints from disgruntled members or cartel employees, purchasers’ or the general public’s awareness and consequent complaints of suspicious collusive activities.
Links to Full Content
Featured News
Congress Pushes to Combat AI Deepfakes in Year-End Funding Deal
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Games Board Resignations Linked to DOJ Antitrust Investigation
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Renault Supports Potential Honda-Nissan Merger Talks
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
South Korea’s Antitrust Body Raises Concerns Over AI Market Competition
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Perplexity Caught in Crossfire as DOJ and Google Battle Over Search Dominance
Dec 18, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Remedies After Illumina/GRAIL– The Thorny Question of Proportionality
Dec 17, 2024 by
Aleksander Tombinski & Ciara Denihan
Why Was Illumina/GRAIL Blocked in the EU? Reviewing The European Commission’s Assessment of Vertical Mergers in Light of the 2022 Prohibition Decision
Dec 17, 2024 by
Will Sparks
The Role of Uncertainty in the Future European Horizontal Merger Guidelines: Lessons Learned From Illumina/GRAIL
Dec 17, 2024 by
Svend Albaek & Daniel Donath
Illumina’s Light on Article 22 EUMR: The Suspended Step and Uncertain Future of EU Merger Control Over Below-Threshold “Killer” Mergers
Dec 17, 2024 by
Anna Tzanaki
EU-Level Jurisdiction Over “Killer Acquisitions” in the Aftermath of Illumina/GRAIL
Dec 17, 2024 by
Peter Whelan