As the price is higher than the marginal costs, the higher the number of buyers of the oligopolist product, the more the sale of a unit will increase at the current price. Whether cartel members choose to defraud the cartel depends on the fact that the short-term revenues from the fraud outweigh the long-term losses resulting from the eventual bankruptcy of the cartel. It also depends in part on the difficulty for companies to monitor compliance with the agreement by other companies. If surveillance is difficult, it is likely that a member will get away with fraud for longer; Members would then be more likely to cheat and the agreement would be more unstable. it is desirable because it reduces conflicts between companies and a wider variety of products for consumers. If oligopolists do not form a cartel, they must decide for themselves how much they should produce. To see how the increase in the number of sellers affects the result, you need to consider the decision each seller is facing. Every business owner always has the opportunity to increase production by 1. In this decision, the owner of the fountain weighs two effects: An agreement between companies in a market to produce quantities or calculate prices as a group, oligopolists would always earn the highest profit if they were an agreement of formal collusion between companies in order to increase profits. Gambling theory suggests that cartels are inherently unstable because the behaviour of cartel members is a prisoner`s dilemma. Any cartel member would be able to make a higher profit, at least in the short term, by breaking the agreement (a larger quantity produced or sold at a lower price) than it would under the agreement. However, if the deal collapses because of resignations, companies will return to competition, profits would go down and things would be worse. One of the ways in which politics discourages cooperation is the common law.
Normally, contractual freedom is an essential part of the market economy. Yet, for many centuries, courts in Europe and North America have regarded agreements between competitors as a violation of the public interest in reducing quantities and increasing prices. They therefore refused to implement such agreements. The more likely it is that the game will be played over and over again among the oligopolists. A cooperative agreement among the oligopolists is less likely to be maintained, It turns out that the oligopolistic game play to get the result of the monopoly is similar to the game that the two prisoners play in the dilemma of prisoners. Over time, many controversies have focused on practices that should be prohibited by competition law. Most commentators agree that price agreements between competing companies should be illegal. Nevertheless, competition law has been used to condemn certain business practices whose effects are not obvious. For example, game theory may explain why oligopolies have difficulty maintaining collusive agreements to generate monopoly gains. While together, companies would be better off if they worked together, each company has a strong incentive to defraud and under-coerce competitors in order to increase their market share. Because the incentive to default is strong, companies cannot even enter into a collusive agreement if they do not perceive that there is a way to effectively punish defectors.
An agreement is an agreement between competing companies to obtain higher profits. Agreements generally occur in an oligopolistic industry where the number of sellers is low and the products marketed are homogeneous. Cartel members can agree on price fixing, total industry production, market share, customer distribution, allocation of territories, supply manipulation, creation of common distribution agencies and profit sharing.