ArticleScientific reports2024
Collusion risk in corporate networks.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Collusion among economic operators increases prices, reduces product quality, and hinders innovation. Structural links can affect the incentive and ability of firms to behave competitively by facilitating collusion. We use a network-based approach to study the relationship between ownership links and bidding behavior in procurement markets. We build temporal multiplex networks based on firms' ownership and co-bidding ties to find network measures that may signal collusion risk. We test four network measures, two at market-level (density and average harmonic closeness centrality) and two at firm-level (degree centrality and harmonic closeness centrality). Using data on public procurement contracts awarded in Sweden from 2010 to 2015, we found higher incidence of single bidding in markets that are more closely related through ownership links. Missing bidders are also more likely in these markets. Single bidding and missing bidders may indicate the presence of collusive arrangements such as of bid suppression or rotation. For the firm-level analyses, our results showed a positive relationship between winning probability and centrality in the ownership network. A similar result was obtained for cut-point position, indicating that firms that are more closely connected to other firms through ownership links have a more important position in the co-bidding network and are also more likely to win contracts.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.