A Pathology of Business Cartels: Original Sin or the Child of Regulation?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the last 10 to 15 years there has been a significant movement towards criminalisation of involvement in business cartels in a number of jurisdictions around the world, outside of the US and Canada where such conduct has been a criminal offence since the end of the nineteenth century. In particular there is now an emphasis on individual or personal as distinct from corporate liability and on the use of severe sanctions such as imprisonment. For European jurisdictions, this represents a significant shift in enforcement strategy and the perception of activities such as price fixing, market sharing and bid rigging. Observation of these legal developments inevitably gives rise to the question: what is so bad about cartel conduct as to merit censure and sanctioning through the processes of criminal law? However, a clear consensus on the specific nature of cartel delinquency remains elusive. The American approach has been to identify an element of conspiracy in the criminality of what are now commonly referred to as hard core cartels. Elsewhere, there are ill-thought out analogies put forward with theft, fraud and dishonesty. The argument in this paper seeks a justification for criminalisation in the upward spiral of enforcement activity and consequent cartel defensiveness, turning cartelists into ‘cognisant, contumacious and covert’ actors who are evolving an increasingly determined outlaw identity in the face of an increasingly assertive global enforcement enterprise.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".