Skills Wars Are The New Trade Wars | Economics Explained

 

A Level Economics 46: The Role of Regulatory/Competition Authority

Competition authorities and regulators play a crucial role in promoting competition and contestability in non-perfectly competitive markets. They use various tools and interventions to address market distortions, protect consumers, and create a level playing field for businesses. Here are some ways competition authorities and regulators promote competition in non-perfectly competitive markets, along with examples to illustrate their impact:

1. Antitrust Enforcement: Competition authorities enforce antitrust laws to prevent anti-competitive practices, such as collusion, price-fixing, and abuse of dominant market positions. They investigate and take legal action against firms engaging in these behaviors to ensure fair competition.

Example: The European Commission fined Google €2.42 billion in 2017 for promoting its own shopping comparison service in search results and demoting competitors, violating EU antitrust rules. This action aimed to restore competition and give fair visibility to rival comparison shopping services.

2. Merger Control: Competition authorities review mergers and acquisitions to prevent the creation of dominant market positions that could stifle competition. They assess whether mergers are likely to harm competition and impose conditions or block mergers if necessary.

Example: In 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit to block AT&T's acquisition of Time Warner, citing potential harm to competition in the media and entertainment industry. The court-approved the merger only after significant divestitures and behavioral commitments were made to maintain competition.

3. Market Studies and Reports: Competition authorities conduct market studies to identify barriers to entry, anti-competitive practices, and market inefficiencies. These studies inform policymakers and regulators, leading to targeted interventions to enhance competition.

Example: The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) conducted a market study of the online platforms and digital advertising market in 2019. The study revealed concerns about the market power of large platforms and led to proposals for a Digital Markets Unit to enforce a new code of conduct and promote competition.

4. Consumer Protection Measures: Competition authorities protect consumers by ensuring businesses provide accurate information, fair contracts, and quality products. They may penalize firms for false advertising or unfair trading practices.

Example: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in the U.S. has taken action against companies making false claims about health products, deceptive advertising, or unfair billing practices, aiming to protect consumers from misleading information and scams.

5. Price Regulation: In some industries, regulators may impose price controls or regulate profit margins to prevent monopolistic pricing and ensure affordable access to essential goods and services.

Example: In healthcare, governments or regulatory bodies may regulate drug prices or set price ceilings for medical services to prevent excessive pricing and ensure accessibility to healthcare for all citizens.

6. Promoting Market Entry and Contestability: Competition authorities may encourage the entry of new firms into the market to increase competition. They may also promote contestability by removing barriers to entry and fostering innovation.

Example: In the telecommunications industry, regulators may allocate spectrum licenses to new entrants to encourage competition and introduce new technologies, leading to improved services and lower prices for consumers.

In conclusion, competition authorities and regulators actively promote competition and contestability in non-perfectly competitive markets through antitrust enforcement, merger control, market studies, consumer protection measures, price regulation, and measures to enhance market entry and contestability. Their interventions aim to create competitive markets that benefit consumers, encourage innovation, and promote economic growth while safeguarding against anti-competitive practices. 

A Level Economics 45: The Need for a Competition Policy

The need for a competition policy arises from the recognition that while free markets can be efficient and effective in resource allocation, they may not always operate optimally. Here are some reasons why the free market principle can fail, leading to the necessity of competition policies:

1. Market Failures: Free markets may encounter various market failures that prevent them from achieving allocative efficiency and promoting consumer welfare. Some common market failures include externalities (e.g., pollution), public goods (e.g., national defense), and information asymmetry (e.g., lack of information for consumers). Competition policies can help address these market failures and correct the inefficiencies they create.

Example: Consider a situation where a manufacturing company releases harmful pollutants into the environment. The free market may not account for the negative externalities imposed on society, resulting in underpricing and overproduction. A competition policy could regulate the company's environmental practices, internalizing the cost of pollution and encouraging cleaner production methods.

2. Monopoly and Market Dominance: In some cases, markets may naturally lead to the emergence of monopolies or dominant firms that have significant market power. These firms can exploit consumers, limit competition, and inhibit innovation. Competition policies aim to prevent and regulate such monopolistic practices to ensure a level playing field for all businesses.

Example: The dominance of a single social media platform may lead to limited competition, allowing the platform to control user data and impose restrictive policies. A competition policy could impose regulations to promote data portability and interoperability, fostering competition and protecting users' rights.

3. Collusion and Anti-Competitive Behavior: Without proper regulations, firms may engage in collusive behavior, cartels, or price-fixing, leading to higher prices and reduced consumer choice. Competition policies seek to prevent collusion and promote fair competition in the market.

Example: In the banking sector, banks might collude to set higher interest rates on loans to maximize profits at the expense of borrowers. A competition policy can enforce laws against such price-fixing practices, promoting a competitive interest rate market.

4. Barriers to Entry: Certain industries may have high barriers to entry, preventing new firms from easily entering the market and competing. This lack of competition can lead to reduced innovation and higher prices for consumers. Competition policies aim to remove or reduce barriers to entry, encouraging new entrants and promoting a competitive environment.

Example: The pharmaceutical industry may have high research and development costs, making it challenging for new companies to introduce generic medications. A competition policy could facilitate the approval process for generic drugs, increasing competition and reducing drug prices.

5. Exploitative Market Power: In the absence of competition policies, firms may exploit their market power to engage in unfair or predatory practices, harming smaller businesses and consumers.

Example: A dominant technology company may require app developers to use its payment system, charging high fees for transactions. A competition policy could investigate and address potential abuse of market power to protect smaller app developers and promote a more competitive app ecosystem.

In conclusion, the failure of the free market principle can lead to various market distortions and inefficiencies. The implementation of competition policies is essential to correct these failures, ensure a fair and competitive environment, and safeguard consumer welfare while promoting innovation and economic growth. By addressing market failures and regulating anti-competitive behavior, competition policies play a vital role in maintaining a balanced and dynamic economy.

A Level Economics 36: The Assumptions of Perfect Competition

Perfect competition is a theoretical market structure characterized by several key features and assumptions. In a perfectly competitive market, there are many buyers and sellers dealing with identical or homogenous products. Each firm is a price taker, meaning it has no influence over the market price, and there are no barriers to entry or exit for new firms. Additionally, perfect information is assumed, implying that buyers and sellers have access to all relevant market information.

Underpinning Assumptions of Perfect Competition:

1. Many Buyers and Sellers:

   • 
     
   • Assumption: There are numerous buyers and sellers in the market, and no single buyer or seller can significantly influence the market price.
   • Importance: The presence of many buyers and sellers ensures that no individual firm has market power to manipulate prices. This fosters intense competition, benefitting consumers with lower prices and greater product availability.
   • 
     

2. Homogeneous Products:

   • 
     
   • Assumption: All firms in a perfectly competitive market produce identical products, making them perfect substitutes for buyers.
   • Importance: Homogeneity eliminates product differentiation and branding competition. Consumers make decisions solely based on price, leading to price-based competition that benefits consumers.

3. 
   

4. Price Takers:

   • 
     
   • Assumption: Each firm is a price taker, meaning it must accept the market-determined price for its output and cannot influence the price through its individual actions.
   • Importance: Being a price taker eliminates pricing power and ensures that all firms face the same market price. This promotes efficient allocation of resources and prevents price manipulation.

5. 
   

6. Free Entry and Exit:

   • 
     
   • Assumption: There are no barriers to entry or exit for new firms to enter or leave the market.
   • Importance: Free entry and exit enable new firms to enter the market if there are profits to be made or exit if there are losses. This ensures that profits are driven down to normal levels in the long run, benefiting consumers with competitive prices.

7. 
   

8. Perfect Information:

   • 
     
   • Assumption: Buyers and sellers have access to complete and accurate information about product quality, prices, and market conditions.
   • Importance: Perfect information ensures that buyers can make informed decisions and choose the best products and prices available. Likewise, sellers can efficiently allocate resources based on market demand and conditions.

9. 
   

10. Perfect Factor Mobility:

    • 
      
    • Assumption: Factors of production, such as labor and capital, can move freely between industries without any restrictions or costs.
    • Importance: Perfect factor mobility ensures that resources can be allocated efficiently to their most productive uses, resulting in optimal output and minimizing waste of resources.

11. 
    

12. Zero Transport Costs:

    • Assumption: There are no transportation costs involved in moving goods and services between locations.
    • Importance: Zero transport costs enable the efficient movement of products and resources, leading to uniform prices across the market and avoiding regional price disparities.

13. 
    

14. Rational Actor:

    • Assumption: All economic agents, including consumers and firms, are rational and act in their self-interest to maximize their utility or profits.
    • Importance: Assuming rational actors allows economists to analyze how individuals and firms make decisions based on cost-benefit analysis and react to changes in market conditions.

Example: Agricultural Commodities Market

Agricultural commodities like wheat, corn, or soybeans often exemplify perfect competition. In these markets, there are many farmers (sellers) and buyers, and each farmer produces the same commodity. Buyers, such as food processing companies or exporters, have access to perfect information about market prices and product quality. Individual farmers cannot influence market prices and must accept the prevailing price for their crops. Moreover, factors of production like labor and machinery can move freely between farms without any constraints, and there are no transport costs involved in moving agricultural products to the market.

The assumptions of perfect competition are vital because they create an ideal benchmark for understanding how competitive markets function. While perfect competition may not fully exist in the real world, understanding its underpinning assumptions helps economists analyze market dynamics and assess the impacts of market imperfections, such as monopolies or oligopolies. Moreover, perfect competition serves as a standard to measure the efficiency of other market structures and helps identify areas where regulatory intervention may be necessary to enhance consumer welfare and overall market efficiency.

The European Super League is the perfect metaphor for global capitalism

From elite football to tech giants, our lives are increasingly governed by ‘free’ markets that turn out to be rigged writes Larry Elliott in The Guardian

‘The organisers of the ESL have taken textbook free-market capitalism and turned it on its head.’ Graffiti showing the Juventus president, Andrea Agnelli, near the headquarters of the Italian Football Federation in Rome. Photograph: Filippo Monteforte/AFP/Getty Images


Back in the days of the Soviet Union, it was common to hear people on the left criticise the Kremlin for pursuing the wrong kind of socialism. There was nothing wrong with the theory, they said, rather the warped form of it conducted behind the iron curtain. 

The same argument has surfaced this week amid the furious response to the now-aborted plans to form a European Super League for 20 football clubs, only this time from the right. Free-market purists say they hate the idea because it is the wrong form of capitalism.

They are both right and wrong about that. Free-market capitalism is supposed to work through competition, which means no barriers to entry for new, innovative products. In football’s case, that would be a go-ahead small club with a manager trying radical new training methods and fielding a crop of players it had nurtured itself or invested in through the transfer market. The league-winning Derby County and Nottingham Forest teams developed by Brian Clough in the 1970s would be an example of this.

Supporters of free-market capitalism say that the system can tolerate inequality provided there is the opportunity to better yourself. They are opposed to cartels and firms that use their market power to protect themselves from smaller and nimbler rivals. Nor do they like rentier capitalism, which is where people can make large returns from assets they happen to own but without doing anything themselves.

The organisers of the ESL have taken textbook free-market capitalism and turned it on its head. Having 15 of the 20 places guaranteed for the founder members represents a colossal barrier to entry and clearly stifles competition. There is not much chance of “creative destruction” if an elite group of clubs can entrench their position by trousering the bulk of the TV receipts that their matches will generate. Owners of the clubs are classic rentier capitalists.

Where the free-market critics of the ESL are wrong is in thinking the ESL is some sort of aberration, a one-off deviation from established practice, rather than a metaphor for what global capitalism has become: an edifice built on piles of debt where the owners of businesses say they love competition but do everything they can to avoid it. Just as the top European clubs have feeder teams that they can exploit for new talent, so the US tech giants have been busy buying up anything that looks like providing competition. It is why Google has bought a slew of rival online advertising vendors and why Facebook bought Instagram and WhatsApp.

For those who want to understand how the economics of football have changed, a good starting point is The Glory Game, a book Hunter Davies wrote about his life behind the scenes with Tottenham Hotspur, one of the wannabe members of the ESL, in the 1971-72 season. (Full disclosure: I am a Spurs season ticket holder.)

Davies’s book devotes a chapter to the directors of Spurs in the early 1970s, who were all lifelong supporters of the club and who received no payment for their services. They lived in Enfield, not in the Bahamas, which is where the current owner, Joe Lewis, resides as a tax exile. These were not radical men. They could not conceive of there ever being women on the board; they opposed advertising inside the ground and were only just coming round to the idea of a club shop to sell official Spurs merchandise. They were conservative in all senses of the word.

In the intervening half century, the men who made their money out of nuts and bolts and waste paper firms in north London have been replaced by oligarchs and hedge funds. TV, barely mentioned in the Glory Game, has arrived with its billions of pounds in revenue. Facilities have improved and the players are fitter, stronger and much better paid than those of the early 1970s. In very few sectors of modern Britain can it be said that the workers receive the full fruits of their labours: the Premier League is one of them.

Even so, the model is not really working and would have worked even less well had the ESL come about. And it goes a lot deeper than greed, something that can hardly be said to be new to football.

No question, greed is part of the story, because for some clubs the prospect of sharing an initial €3.5bn (£3bn) pot of money was just too tempting given their debts, but there was also a problem with the product on offer.

Some of the competitive verve has already been sucked out of football thanks to the concentration of wealth. In the 1970s, there was far more chance of a less prosperous club having their moment of glory: not only did Derby and Forest win the league, but Sunderland, Southampton and Ipswich won the FA Cup. Fans can accept the despair of defeat if they can occasionally hope for the thrill of victory, but the ESL was essentially a way for an elite to insulate itself against the risk of failure.

By presenting their half-baked idea in the way they did, the ESL clubs committed one of capitalism’s cardinal sins: they damaged their own brand. Companies – especially those that rely on loyalty to their product – do that at their peril, not least because it forces politicians to respond. Supporters have power and so do governments, if they choose to exercise it.

The ESL has demonstrated that global capitalism operates on the basis of rigged markets not free markets, and those running the show are only interested in entrenching existing inequalities. It was a truly bad idea, but by providing a lesson in economics to millions of fans it may have performed a public service.