anti-competitive agreements allan fels, professor of government, the australia and new zealand...
TRANSCRIPT
Anti-competitive Agreements
Allan Fels, Professor of Government, The Australia and New Zealand School of Government (ANZSOG)
Overview
Horizontal agreements Cooperation, collusion, and cartels Per se prohibitions Other anti-competitive agreements Joint ventures
Vertical agreements Price restraints Non-price restraints
Case studies 2010 South African bread cartel 2007 Dutch beer cartel
Other Issues
Agreements under Malaysian Competition Law
Per se illegal – horizontal agreements Fix price or any other trading conditions Market sharing or share sources of supply Limit or control production, market outlets or market
access, technical or technological development, or investment
Bid rigging
Other anti-competitive agreements – horizontal or vertical agreements Object or effect of significantly preventing, restricting or
distorting competition in any market for goods or services
Individual exemptions and block exemptions
Cooperation vs Non-Cooperation
Firms face a choice between cooperation and non-cooperation Firms recognise the possibility of higher profits if they
coordinate their activities But there is a strong private incentive to not cooperate
Certain forms of cooperation are per se illegal as 99% of the time they are harmful and should be banned
Other forms of cooperation should be assessed on a rule of reason basis
Cooperation, collusion, cartels
Economics of Cooperation
Potential anti-competitive effectsHigher pricesReduced productionWelfare transfer from consumer to producersDeadweight lossCosts of forming and enforcing
cooperation/collusion/cartelProtects inefficient firms Increased consumer search costsLower quality and variety of productsDecrease productive efficiency or innovation
Economics of Cooperation
Potential pro-competitive effectsEconomies of scale and scope Improve planning of production and distributionAdvantages in marketing and distributionResearch and developmentReduces risk
Collusion
Collusion will be successful if:1. Potential for monopoly power, given the
characteristics of the market
2. Expected high gains
3. Organisational problems can be overcome
Unsuccessful cartelsCartels that are caught are the unsuccessful cartelsSometimes easier to catch
Collusion
Generally 3 types of collusion – agree to:1. Fix prices, restrict output, market sharing, divide
markets, bid rigging• Prohibited per se under Malaysian Competition Law
2. Take joint action to harm rivals who are not party to the collusion, eg collective boycotts
• Only illegal if object or effect of significantly preventing, restricting or distorting competition in any market for goods or services
3. Manipulate the rules of competition in a manner that will lessen forms of competition other than price competition, eg restrict advertising
Collusion
Market characteristics for successful collusion Inelastic demand at competitive priceAbsence of large and sophisticated buyersHomogenous productsStable/predictable demandMature marketsSeller concentrationLack of competitive fringe with elastic supplyDifficult to enter marketSimilar cost structuresEg cement, coffee, fruit and vegetables, mobile phones
Collusion
Conditions for successful, stable collusion1. Competitors reach an understanding on price,
output or another factor of competition
2. Detect deviations
3. Punish deviations
Collusion
1. Reaching agreementWhat is an agreement?Firms might find it difficult to agree on a particular
outcome as their interests are not perfectly alignedNon-price variables and changing market conditions
complicate mattersCommon strategies
1. Cheap talk and focal points
2. Basing point pricing
3. Use trade associations
Collusion
2. Detecting deviations – requires monitoring• Likelihood of successfully imposing/maintaining a
cartel depends on• Short term benefits of non-cooperation vs Longer term
loss of non-cooperation
• Likelihood that cheating will be discovered and punished
• Devices for detecting deviations1. Information sharing
2. Meeting competition clauses
3. Repeated interaction
Collusion
3. Punishing deviations – examples• Quota reduction• Side payments• Non-cheating members to revert to the non-
collusive prices by raising output for some time• Most favoured customer clause• Multi-market contacts• Increasing cross-ownership among rivals interests• Threat of a price war
Per Se Prohibitions
Proving the agreementEvidence of explicit agreement between membersEvidence of parallel conduct
Mere parallelism? Conscious parallelism/oligopolistic interdependence?
Evidence of facilitating/concerted practices Information exchange?
Per Se Prohibitions
US approachContract, combination, or conspiracyParallel conduct + “plus factors” (typically
circumstantial evidence that tends to exclude the possibility that the parties acted independently)
EU approachAgreements, decision of associated undertakings, or
concerted practicesConcurrence of willsParallel conduct is not proof of concertation unless
concertation is the only plausible explanation for such conduct
Per Se Prohibitions
Australian approachContract, arrangement, or understandingRequires communication, consensus, and
commitmentPrice signalling and information disclosure re:
banking sector
Leniency Programs
Increases the probability of detection and punishment by placing cartel members in a prisoners’ dilemma Interest in keeping cartel unproven vs Incentive to
confessLeniency increases the incentive to cheat and confess =>
increases cartel instability
Increases the probability of detection and punishment by placing cartel members in a prisoners’ dilemma
Lowers the cost of detection
Provides information
Leniency Programs
Factors that increase the effectiveness of leniency programsThreat of firm sanctionsFirms perceive a significant risk of detectionTransparency
Other Horizontal Agreements
Examples Information sharingRestrictions on advertisingStandardisation agreementsR&D joint ventures
Apply rule of reason analysis
Rule of Reason Analysis
1. Facts peculiar to caseEg market power of the parties, competitive
relationship between parties, economic conditions
2. Nature and scope of the restraint• What does the restraint actually do, how far does it
extend• Reasons for its entry and adoption• Business purpose?• Is the restraint ancillary to the main and lawful
purpose of the arrangement
Rule of Reason Analysis
3. Anticompetitive effects of the restraintCompare the condition of the market before and
after the restraint
4. Pro-competitive justifications• Eg efficiencies, economies of scale, non-economic
benefits
5. Is the restraint reasonably necessary to achieve those justifications, is it the least restrictive means
6. Weigh up
Example: Joint Ventures
Generally treated like other general anti-competitive horizontal agreements
Potential pro-competitive effectsEconomies of scaleSpreading the risks and costs of research and
development Increasing incentives for research and developmentAcquiring new technologies or skillsSynergies from pooling of complementary resources
or capabilities
Example: Joint Ventures
Potential anti-competitive effectsSpillover collusionCollateral restraintsBuild or secure monopoly power by erecting barriers
to entry and eliminating competitionDenying access to essential resources or facilitiesDecreased dynamic efficiency
Reduction of competitive pressure leading to less incentive to engage in research and development
Reduction in diversity of research paths
Horizontal Mergers
Normally dealt with under merger law
A merger maybe anti-competitive but there are greater chances of achieving efficiency gains
In the absence of a merger law, a cartel prohibition may generate mergers between competitors
Vertical Agreements
Price and non-price restraints
Generally less of a concern than horizontal agreements from an economic perspective and treated more leniently
There is no economic reason to distinguish between price and non-price restraints The nature of the restraint on its own does not allow
prediction of whether will have positive/negative welfare effects
Cf position taken by MyCC in its guidelines
Analysed using Rule of Reason
Vertical Price Restraints
Resale price maintenanceMaximum resale priceMinimum resale priceRecommended retail priceExamples
Perfumes Sporting goods Electronics Shoes
Vertical Price Restraints
Potential pro-competitive effects Enhances interbrand competition Encourages non-price competition between retailers Protects investment in brand image Prevents free riding Prevents loss leader selling Attracts retailers by ensuring a certain level of profit Preserves small business from national chains or discount
operations Avoids double marginalisation
Potential anti-competitive effects Aids collusion at both the manufacturer and retailer levels Reduces intrabrand competition
Vertical Non-Price Restraints
Non-price restraintsGeographic restrictionsCustomer restrictionsExclusive contracts
Requirements contracts Exclusive distributorship Tying conduct
Vertical Non-Price Restraints
ExamplesA will only supply B on condition that B not acquire
any of its stock from C (a competitor of A) A will only supply B on condition that B not sell to
customers who live in the Eastern regionA will only supply B on condition that B also acquire
washing powder from AB agrees to acquire stock from A on the condition
that A not supply to any another retailer in a certain area or of a certain kind
Vertical Non-Price Restraints
Potential pro-competitive effects Enhances interbrand competition Prevents free riding Avoid double marginalisation Reduces distribution costs Rationalises production Greater control over standards and services
Potential anti-competitive effects Less choice and potentially higher prices Market foreclosure Increases barriers to entry at manufacturers’ level Limits intrabrand competition
Rule of Reason
Need to consider the impact of the restraint both levels of the market affected
In particular, note
Impact on inter- and intra-brand competition
Length of restraint
Impact on structural and strategic barriers to entry
Promotion of market sharing and price sharing
Vertical Agreements
Proving vertical agreementsEvidence of express vertical agreementCircumstantial evidence?
Manufacturer announces in advance the circumstances under which it will refuse to sell, and then refuse to deal with those who do not comply
Distributing lists showing uniform prices to be charged Termination following complaints Other unilateral conduct/policies? Tacit acquiescence?
Vertical Agreements
• US approach• Contract, combination, or conspiracy• Evidence that tends to exclude the possibility that
the parties were acting independently• Reasonable tendency to prove that the parties had a
conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective
Vertical Agreements
• EU approach• Agreement or concerted practice• Concurrence of wills• Tacit acquiescence can be inferred• Where one party requires the cooperation of the other
party to implement its unilateral policy and the other party complies with that requirement by implementing that unilateral policy in practice
• Level of coercion exerted by a party to impose its unilateral policy on the other parties, together with the number of parties who implement that unilateral policy in practice
Case Study: 2010 South African Bread Cartel
Entry barriers
Demand substitutes
Elasticity
Vertical relationships
Case Study: 2007 Dutch Beer Cartel
Entry barriers
Demand substitutes
Elasticity
Vertical relationships
Other Issues
International cartels and cooperation between NCAs Information sharing and leniency