Data Analysis by County in The Tri-County

1.
Data analysis by county in the tri-county

In order to count incumbencies, we need to sort the data by year, market, winner then district.
Since our interest is analyzing potential collusion in Tri-County, the data set added below
shows the data arranged by district and within each district by year. This way, all
incumbencies can be counted by eye. By using Excel COUNTIF formulas to determine
whether the year in question marks an incumbency with the logic statement that the dairy that
won the bid the previous year is the same as the one in the following year and with “Yes”
noting that logical argument is true and “No” noting that it is false.
Table 1: the data is statistics by county over the years

Incumbency
Year Market Winner District Incumbency Total years
rates of district
1983 TRI-COUNTY TRAUTH 26
1984 TRI-COUNTY TRAUTH 26 Yes
1989 TRI-COUNTY MEYER 26 No
1990 TRI-COUNTY MEYER 26 Yes
1991 TRI-COUNTY MEYER 26 Yes 7 0.875
1991 TRI-COUNTY MEYER 32 Yes 7 0.875
1983 TRI-COUNTY MEYER 35
1989 TRI-COUNTY TRAUTH 35 No
1991 TRI-COUNTY MEYER 35 No 6 0.75
1991 TRI-COUNTY TRAUTH 91 Yes 5 0.625
1991 TRI-COUNTY MEYER 134 Yes 8 1
1991 TRI-COUNTY TRAUTH 176 Yes 8 1
Summarize from the above table and run data analysis:

District Incumbency rates of district Incumbency rates of district
26 0.875 Mean 0.880494505
32 0.875 Standard Error 0.041109465
35 0.75 Median 0.875
91 0.625 Mode 1
134 1 Standard Deviation 0.148222285
147 0.57 Sample Variance 0.021969846
157 0.875 Kurtosis 0.328806081
176 1 Skewness -1.154780007
291 0.875 Range 0.428571429
354 1 Minimum 0.571428571
452 1 Maximum 1
533 1 Sum 11.44642857
567 1 Count 13
Confidence
Level(99.0%) 0.125570489
This counting allows us to determine how many incumbencies occurred within each district
illustrated in table 1. An incumbency rate that exceeds 70% has been considered a sign of
collusive behavior. The table notes the number of school districts that witnessed
incumbencies during each district which is demonstrated by the below line graph depicting
incumbency proportions for each district for the entire Tri-County region.
Another way of determining whether there was collusion or not is studying the behavior of
the market by the market players. In normal conditions, bids on milk for a market with many
buyers and many sellers, there is an incumbency of less than 70%. All the schools in the
district who buy milk from the same supplier show this for a normal market in the years
before. To test if the incumbency rate was above 70% for the period between districts for
example, we must state both the null and alternative hypothesis.
H0: μ=0.7
H1: μ>0.7
After calculations the value of t turned out to be 4.39 Taking a significance level of a=0.01,
with the assumption of a large sample size, we realize that t-statistic > t- critical (2.68) . This
calls for us to reject the null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis that the
incumbent rate is more than 70%. There is more than enough data to show that the incumbent
rate is more than 70%.
2. Data analysis by years in tri-county.

From table 1, sort the data by year to determine the district with repeat winners compared to
the previous year:
Table2: The data is statistic by year
Year Number of districts Same vendors Incumbency rate of years
84 12 8 0,67
85 13 12 0,92
86 13 13 1,00
87 13 12 0,92
88 13 13 1,00
89 13 9 0,69
90 14 10 0,71
91 13 12 0,92
By looking at the graph, we conclude that all years between 1984 and 1991 show potential
collusive behavior as incumbency levels are above 70%. The numbers show that the years
1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1991 have relatively strong incumbency rates compared to the
other years. In the cases where the proportion is 1, these districts awarded the bid to the same
dairy over the entire 8-year period in question. This is something to keep in mind for further
analyses of the situation.
With the same test hypothesis for the period between 1985-1988 for example we have the value
of t turned out to be 11,26 . Taking a significance level of a=0.01, with the assumption of a
large sample size, we realize that t-statistic > t- critical (2.68) .This calls for us to reject the
null hypothesis and accept the alternative hypothesis that the incumbent rate is more than
70%. In conclusion, there is sufficient evidence that the incumbency rate in the tri-country
market is doubtful.
Data analysis by years compare with surrounding

To be more objective, try to compare the ratio of the tri-county area and surrounding area in
the same year. Use the same method as above to process the surrounding data, we have:
Table 3: The data is statistics by year between 2 areas.

Year Surround Tri-county
84 0.57 0.67
85 0.59 0.92
86 0.54 1
87 0.73 0.92
88 0.69 1
89 0.62 0.69
90 0.69 0.71
91 0.60 0.92
The incumbency rates in the surrounding market reached over 0.7 only in 1 year. But that in
the tri-county has been less than 0.7 only in 2 years. And the mean of tri-county is far more
than that of the surrounding market.
From the previous analysis we figured out that if the incumbency of rate exceeds 70%, it
means a sign of collusive behavior. We calculated that the Surrounding market didn’t exceed
0.7 but the Tri-county market surpassed 0.7 most of the time, considering it a sign of
collusive behavior.
Conclusion: The mentioned-above analysis illustrated that the Tri-county market had
relatively strong incumbency rates from 1985 to 1988, which showed an indicator of
collusive behaviour.

Data Analysis by County in The Tri-County

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Data Analysis by County in The Tri-County

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1.

Data analysis by county in the tri-county

Table 1: the data is statistics by county over the years

Summarize from the above table and run data analysis:

2. Data analysis by years in tri-county.

Data analysis by years compare with surrounding

Table 3: The data is statistics by year between 2 areas.

You might also like