1 / 26

Eleanor M. Fox Professor, New York University School of Law

Exclusionary strategies of dominant firms: do small and developing economies need a view of their own?. Eleanor M. Fox Professor, New York University School of Law Fifth Annual Lecture, Fair Trading Commission of Barbados Feb. 13, 2009. Outline. 1 Introduction 2 Barbados and the world

bsoule
Télécharger la présentation

Eleanor M. Fox Professor, New York University School of Law

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Exclusionary strategies of dominant firms: do small and developing economies need a view of their own? Eleanor M. Fox Professor, New York University School of Law Fifth Annual Lecture, Fair Trading Commission of Barbados Feb. 13, 2009

  2. Outline • 1 Introduction • 2 Barbados and the world • 3 Globalization and its ideologies • 4 Economic law –US, EU competition • Why an abuse of dominance law? What should it do? • 5 Full and fair competition for Barbados • 6 Conclusion

  3. I. Introduction • What is a dominant firm? • What are exclusionary strategies? • Why should we worry? Or not worry? • Should the whole world do the same thing? • Efficiency and justice: for whom • IS IT TRUE - What is good for the MNEs is good for Barbados

  4. II. Barbados, the world, and competition • A. Barbados • Your beautiful island • Building competitive markets in Barbados • keeping markets safe from abuse • B. Competition and the world • 1989 fall of Berlin Wall • 1994 Conclusion of the Uruguay Round, WTO • Forces of competitive freedom • But also unleashing world cartels and global dominance

  5. C. Competition LAW and the world • US – from 1890 • A law against power • EU – from 1957 • A law to establish a common market • Integration, level playing field • South Africa – from 1998 • Efficiency and justice • Barbados – from 2003 • Fair competition for consumers and enterprises

  6. III. How globalization changed the stakes and unleashed ideologies • 1980s-90s • Heyday of the “Washington Consensus” • The market is good, the government is bad • There is one right path for the world-the market • Market power is fleeting • Government intervention is protectionist • “Globalization + liberalization lifts all boats” • From roots up to top down (but with no top) • Truths and errors

  7. US economic law adopts the Washington consensus • This is a cautionary tale • To explain how market ideologies can shrink the competition law so that it provides very little protection against abuse of dominance • And to show the room for another path • Stories from the US • The law of abuse of dominance • US law shrinks, and shrinks, and shrinks

  8. US point of view: Presidents Reagan through Bush II • “Competition law protects competition and consumers, not competitors” • Should it also empower David against Goliath? (No; Goliath is efficient)

  9. Should the law protect business from aggressive dominant firms? (No)Do you see a shark? This is not a shark. Only inefficient competitors see a shark.

  10. OR should the law just focus on consumers? (and efficiency) - YES

  11. Consumers yes, BUT • But • The law should not protect against prices that are too high • The market will drive prices down • Price capping by an agency is too regulatory, and regulators will get it wrong

  12. We have seen the goal; what are the presumptions? • Consumer welfare and efficiency: this means aggregate wealth • Markets are robust and work • Antitrust cases against dominant firms usually make things worse • US law is tolerant of exclusionary practices • Enforcement might handicap efficient firms, chill innovation

  13. US Supreme Court:The last 2 cases on dominance • Verizon v. Trinko 2004 • Dominant telecom with sole access to local loop degrades service when supplying rivals • No violation; even dominant firms should not have duties to share facilities except in most extreme cases lest their incentives to invent be chilled • “Monopoly power .. is an important element of the free-market system …[It] is what attracts business acumen.” “False condemnations are especially costly …”

  14. Supreme Court case - 2 • Weyerhaeuser 2007 • Dominant buyer of logs overbuys and drives up price to deprive rival saw mills of enough logs, squeezing them out • No violation because a predatory buying scheme is likely to fail and a failed predatory buying scheme, like predatory pricing, may benefit consumers

  15. More US cases • Rambus • Rambus makes computer technology chips • The industry is setting a standard for interoperability • Rambus deceives: • Supports a standard that will incorporate its new patents and hides the fact that it will require licensing of its patents • no violation; the effect may have been to exclude other technologies or just to raise prices • And just raising prices is not a violation

  16. Other jurisdictions • European Union • Has a adopted a more economic approach • Prohibits exploitative pricing • Prohibits exclusionary practices • More willing than US to weigh the costs of excluding rivals • Entry and access matter • South Africa • Aggressive against dominant firm • Including monopoly firms using strategies to keep up prices • Mittal/Harmony Steel case

  17. C. Back to America -Economic fundamentalism explodes: the financial crisis –“We are all socialists now” • Economic fundamentalism and Alan Greenspan’s shock • “There must have been a flaw in my model” • The financial crisis has shattered the ideological free market beliefs • These are the beliefs on which US monopoly law is poised; what future for the shrunken US antitrust? • A need to rethink assumptions • Back to roots

  18. V. Barbados and its law • The fair competition act is an act • To promote, maintain, encourage competition • To prohibit prevention, restriction, distortion of competition and the abuse of dominant positions • To “ensure that all enterprises, irrespective of size, have the opportunity to participate equitably in the market place” …

  19. Barbados Act, Sec. 16 • A firm abuses a dominant position if it • Restricts entry • Deters an enterprise from competing • Eliminates any enterprise • Imposes unfair prices • Limits production • Engages in tying or exclusive dealing • Uses any other measure unfairly allowing it to maintain dominance

  20. Would/should Barbados condemn .. • Verizon? • Weyerhaeuser? • linkLine? • Rambus? • By what principle? • What if efficient dominant firm threatens to eliminate domestic business by sustainable low prices – and in times of financial crisis?

  21. Barbados protects consumers

  22. Should it also empower David against Goliath?

  23. Should it also protect business from aggressive dominant firms?

  24. CONCLUSION:A VIEW OF ONE’S OWN • A COMPETITION LAW • For empowering David • Against predatory sharks • FOR THE CONSUMER AGAINST EXPLOITATIVE FIRMS • Rethinking globalization and liberalization • Time for roots-up competition law • with proper regard for the world

More Related