Search results

Plus Factors have long played an important role in inferring a price agreement from the totality of the evidence. In response to changes in the case law, economists have proposed two alternative paths for the future of price fixing analysis. This paper evaluates the suggested approaches and recommends retaining the enhanced Plus Factor methodology.

By carefully defining the Plus Factor concept, three key components of the analysis emerge: (1) information on communications associated with the alleged agreement, (2) economic considerations affecting market competition, and (3) characteristics that serve to differentiate explicit from tacit collusion.

Developments rationalizing the Plus Factor concept show promise, as the methodology is not more closely related to economic theory. On the other hand, replacement of the Plus Factor methodology with one focused on market performance seems problematic. By abandoning the Plus Factor concept, the economist loses a key institutional constraint on over-aggressive enforcement.

Until advocates can address the difficulties associated with using performance evidence to identify price fixing, the standard Plus Factor concept appears more appropriate. Thus, antitrust analysts should continue to use the Plus Factor methodology to infer agreements in price fixing investigations, as long as the economic rationalization of the specific Plus Factor is clearly presented.

The paper synthesizes a number of recent contributions to the price fixing literature and addresses key issues of interest to the enforcement community. By providing a critique of the proposed policy shift to use performance evidence to infer price fixing liability, the study serves to justify continued application of the Plus Factor methodology.

A person’s value in terms of physical and mental abilities, talents and skills is not simply located in degrees of her/his body’s ability to function. Efforts to achieve social and workplace equality for people with a physical/body or psychological/mental disability have grown to a transnational social movement. The community of people with a disability may be among the largest, most diverse group of people. By examining disability through lenses of cultural, economic, and political contexts, Chapter 10 underscores the importance of understanding how and why experiences and issues associated with social identity shaped by these dimensions has captured the attention of policymakers and employers around the world.

A person’s identity is socially constructed and impacted by government policy, cultural values, and organizational decision making. The field of disability studies is dedicated to advancing greater understanding of experiences of people with a disability and empowering them to pursue happy and fulfilling lives. Institutionalized manifestations of stigma, ableism, discrimination, and bias diminish these pursuits, however. People everywhere and the organizations staffed and managed by them are urged to consider the positive outcomes of fully embracing people with a disability for their ability to perform responsibilities and to bring unique perspectives on organizational practices and exchanges with key stakeholders. Chapter 10 examines subthemes central to the study of social identity among people with a disability: paradigm shift and policy making about disability, legislation and policy, people working with a disability in organizations, language and naming debates, and disability and other social identity intersectionalities.