Theoretical and Empirical Issues in Conducting an Economic Analysis of Damage in Price-Fixing Litigation: Application to a Transportation Fuel Market

담합관련 손해배상 소송의 경제분석에서 고려해야 할 이론 및 실증적 쟁점: 수송용 연료시장에의 적용

  • 문춘걸 (한양대학교 경제금융대학)
  • Received : 2014.06.01
  • Accepted : 2014.06.13
  • Published : 2014.06.30


We present key issues to consider in estimating damages from price-fixing cases and then apply the procedure addressing those issues to a transportation fuel market. Among the five methods of overcharge calculation, the regression analysis incorporating the yardstick method is the best. If the price equation relates the domestic price to the foreign price and the exchange rate as in the transportation fuel market, the functional form satisfying both logical consistency and modeling flexibility is the log-log functional form. If the data under analysis is of time series in nature, then the ARDL model should be the base model for each market and the regression analysis incorporating the yardstick method combines these ARDL equations to account for inter-market correlation and arrange constant terms and collusion-period dummies across component equations appropriately so as to identify the overcharge parameter. We propose a two-step test for the benchmarked market: (a) conduct market-by-market Spearman or Kendall test for randomness of the individual market price series first and (b) then conduct across-market Friedman test for homogeneity of the market price series. Statistical significance is the minimal requirement to establish the alleged proposition in the world of uncertainty. Between the sensitivity analysis and the model selection process for the best fitting model, the latter is far more important in the economic analysis of damage in price-fixing litigation. We applied our framework to a transportation fuel market and could not reject the null hypothesis of no overcharge.


  1. 서울중앙지방법원 2007.1.23.선고 2001가합10682 판결[손해배상(기)].
  2. 남재현.오선아, '국내 휘발유 가격의 비대칭성 관련 전문가토론회' 발표자료, 2009 년 03월 12일.
  3. 대법원 2011.7.28.선고 2010다18850 판결[손해배상(기)].
  4. 류근관.오선아, "담합으로 인한 손해액 산정에 있어서 경제 분석 상의 주요 쟁점", 응용경제, 제12권 제2호, 한국응용경제학회, 2010년 09월, 87-112.
  5. 서울고등법원 2009.12.30.선고 2007나25157 판결[손해배상(기).
  6. 오선아.허은녕, "국내 석유제품가격의 변동에 대한 소비자의 인식과 비대칭 분석 비교", 자원.환경경제연구, 제21권 제1호, 2012년 3월, 69-92.
  7. 이양섭, "TAR와 M-TAR 오차수정모형을 이용한 국내 휘발유가격의 비대칭성 분석", 자원.환경경제연구, 제17권 제4호, 2008, 813-843.
  8. 장효욱, "미국 법원에서의 경제분석 활용 - 노동문제를 중심으로", 한국경제포럼, 제5권 제4호, 한국경제학회, 2012년 겨울호, 89-115.
  9. Ashenfelter, Orley, Phillip Levine and David J.Zimmerman, Statistics and Econometrics: Methods and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2003.
  10. Bagdonavicius, Vilijandas, Julius Kruopis and Mikhail S.Nikulin, Non-parametric Tests for Complete Data, ISTE Ltd and Wiley, 2011.
  11. Doornik, Jurgen A.and David F.Hendry, PcGive Student 8.0 An Interactive Econometric Modelling System, London: International Thomson Publishing/Duxbury Press, 1994.(Chapter 16, p.212)
  12. Berndt, Ernst R., The Practice of Econometrics: Classic and Contemporary, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1991.
  13. Clark, Emily, Mat Hughes and David Wirth, "Analysis of economic models for the calculation of damages," mimeographed manuscript, Ashurst, August 2004.
  14. Daubert et al.v.Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S.579 (1993)
  15. Federal Rules of Evidence 2014, Federal Evidence Review,, 2014.
  16. Finkelstein, Michael O.and Hans Levenbach, "Regression estimates of damages in price-fixing cases," Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol.46, No.4, 1983, 145-169.
  17. Hendry, David F., Econometrics: Alchemy or Science?, Oxford University Press, New Edition, 2000.(Chapters 4 and 19)
  18. Hendry, D.F., A.Pagan, and J.D.Sargan (1984) "Dynamic Specification," Chapter 18 in Z.Griliches and M.D.Intriligator, eds., Handbook of Econometrics, Volume 2, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1023-1100.
  19. Hill, R.Carter, William E.Griffiths and Guay C.Lim, Principles of Econometrics, Fourth Edition, John Wiley & Sons, 2011.(Sections 9.6 and 9.7)
  20. Hubert, Lawrence and Howard Wainer, A Statistical Guide for the Ethically Perplexed, CRC Press, 2013.
  21. King & King Enterprise v.Champlin Petroleum Co., 657 F.2d.1147, 1156-1157 (10th Cir.1981), cert.denied, 454 U.S.1164 (1982)
  22. Kumho Tire Company v.Carmichael, 526 U.S.137, 119 S.Ct.1167 (1999)
  23. Rubinfeld, Daniel, "Quantitative Methods in Antitrust," Issues in Competition Law and Policy 723 (ABA Section of Antitrust Law 2008), 2008, 723-742.
  24. Scheffman, David and Mary Coleman, "FTC perspectives on the use of econometric analysis in antitrust cases," in John D.Harkrider and Daniel Rubinfeld, eds., Econometrics: Legal, Practical, and Technical Issues, ABA Section of Antitrust Law, 2005.(Chapter V).