Leniency programs, antitrust enforcement and multimarket contact : three essays in industrial organization

The Layout of My Thesis This thesis contains three chapters in Industrial Organization that build on the work outlined above. The first two chapters combine leniency programs with multimarket contact and provide a thorough analysis of the potential effects of Amnesty Plus and Penalty Plus. The third chapter puts the whole discussion on leniency programs into perspective by examining other enforcement tools available to an antitrust authority. The main argument in that last chapter is that a specific instrument can only be as effective as the policy in which it is embedded. It is therefore important for an antitrust authority to know how it best accompanies the introduction or modification of a policy instrument that helps deterrence. INTRODUCTION Chapter 1 examines the efféct of Amnesty Plus and Penalty Plus on the incentives of firms to report cartel activities. The main question is whether the inclusion of these policies in a leniency program undermine the effectiveness of the latter by discouraging the firms to apply for amnesty. The model is static and focus on the ex post incentives of firms to desist from collusion. The results suggest that, because Amnesty Plus and Penalty Plus encourage the reporting of a second cartel after a first detection, a firm, anticipating this, may be reluctant to seek leniency and to report in the first place. However, the effect may also go in the opposite direction, and Amnesty Plus and Penalty Plus may encourage the simultaneous reporting of two cartels. Chapter 2 takes this idea further to the stage of cartel formation. This chapter provides a complete characterization of the potential anticompetitive and procompetitive effects of Amnesty Plus in a infinitely repeated game framework when the firms use their multimarket contact to harshen punishment. I suggest a clear-cut policy rule that prevents potential adverse effects and thereby show that, if policy makers follow this rule, a leniency program with Amnesty Plus performs better than one without. Chapter 3 characterizes the socially optimal enforcement effort of an antitrust authority and shows how this effort changes with the introduction or modification of specific policy instruments. The intuition is that the policy instrument may increase the marginal benefit of conducting investigations. If this effect is strong enough, a more rigorous detection policy becomes socially desirable.

Diarrhées aiguës: propositions de prise en charge ambulatoire [Acute diarrhea: proposal for outpatient management]

Dans la majorité des cas, les diarrhées aiguës sont bénignes et d'évolution spontanément favorable. Il faut cependant savoir reconnaître les situations pouvant mener à des complications, en l'occurrence identifier les diarrhées invasives, inflammatoires, caractérisées par la présence de fièvre, de douleurs abdominales, de ténesmes, de mucus et, ou de sang dans les selles. Celles-ci sont à distinguer des diarrhées sécrétoires, non invasives, non inflammatoires, sans fièvre, généralement aqueuses et volumineuses. En cas de doute diagnostique, l'identification de leucocytes par microscopie ou test à la lactoferrine dans les selles permet d'évoquer une gastroentérite invasive. Les indications à une antibiothérapie empirique dans l'attente du résultat de la coproculture sont la présence d'un syndrome dysentérique (T > 38°C, > 6 selles/24 heures, douleurs abdominales, diarrhées mucopurulentes), l'âge avancé, des comorbidités significatives, une immunosuppression et la présence d'une prothèse endovasculaire. In the majority of the cases, an acute diarrhea is mild and of spontaneously favorable evolution. It is however necessary to know how to recognize the situations being able to lead to complications, in particular to identify the invasive, inflammatory diarrheas, characterized by the presence of fever, abdominal pains, mucus and\or blood. The identification of leukocytes by microscopy or lactoferrine test is helpful. Empiric quinolones treatment is recommended in the presence of dysenteric syndrome (T > 38 degrees C, > 6 stods/24 h 00, abdominal pain muco-purulent diarrhea), advanced age, significant comorbidities, immunosuppression or presence of an endovascular prothesis