Anti-competitive practices
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
| Competition law |
|---|
| Basic concepts |
| Anti-competitive practices |
| Laws and doctrines |
Europe Australia |
| Enforcement authorities and organizations |
| edit box |
Anti-competitive practices are business or government practices that prevent and/or reduce competition in a market (see restraint of trade).
Contents |
[edit] Anti-competitive practices
These can include:
- Dumping, where A company with a lot of cash money invest it to wipe out her competitions in a market. They do this by flooding it with competitive product with a very cheap end consumer price. Losing money in each sale, and rendering competition impossible.
- Exclusive dealing, where a retailer or wholesaler is obliged by contract to only purchase from the contracted supplier.
- Barriers to entry (to an industry) designed to avoid the competition that new entrants would bring.
- Price fixing, where companies collude to set prices, effectively dismantling the free market.
- Refusal to deal, e.g., two companies agree not to use a certain vendor
- Dividing territories, e.g., you get everything west of the Mississippi, we take everything east
- Limit Pricing, where the price is set by a monopolist to discourage economic entry into a market.
- Product tying, where products that aren't naturally related must be bought together; this prevents consumer choice.
- Resale price maintenance, where resellers are not allowed to set prices independently.
- Coercive monopoly - all potential competition is barred from entering the market
- Government-granted monopoly - a private individual or firm to be the sole provider
- Government monopoly - the state is the sole provider
Also criticized are:
- Absorption of a competitor or competing technology, where the powerful firm effectively co-opts or swallows its competitor rather than see it either compete directly or be absorbed by another firm.
- Subsidies from government which allow a firm to function without being profitable, giving them an advantage over competition or effectively barring competition
- Regulations which place costly restrictions on firms that less wealthy firms cannot afford to implement
- Protectionism, Tariffs and Quotas which give firms insulation from competitive forces
- Patent misuse and copyright misuse, such as fraudulently obtaining a patent, copyright, or other form of intellectual property; or using such legal devices to gain advantage in an unrelated market.
- Digital rights management which prevents owners from selling used media, as would normally be allowed by the first sale doctrine.
[edit] Effects
 |
To comply with Wikipedia's quality standards, this article may need to be rewritten. Please help improve this article. The discussion page may contain suggestions. |
It is usually difficult to practice anti-competitive practices unless the parties involved have significant market power or government backing.
Monopolies and oligopolies are often accused of, and sometimes found guilty of, anti-competitive practices. For this reason, company mergers are often examined closely by government regulators to avoid reducing competition in an industry.
Although anti-competitive practices often enrich those who practice them, they are generally believed to have a negative effect on the economy as a whole, and to disadvantage competing firms and consumers who are not able to avoid their effects, generating a significant social cost. For these reasons, most countries have competition laws to prevent anti-competitive practices, and government regulators to aid the enforcement of these laws.
The argument that anti-competitive practices have a negative effect on the economy arises from the belief that a freely functioning efficient market economy, composed of many market participants each of which has limited market power, will not permit monopoly profits to be earned...and consequently prices to consumers will be lower, and if anything there will be a wider range of products supplied.
Some people believe that the realities of the marketplace are sometimes more complex than this or similar theories of competition would suggest. For example, oligopolistic firms may achieve economies of scale that would elude smaller firms. Again, very large firms, whether quasi-monopolies or oligopolies, may achieve levels of sophistication e.g. in business process and/or planning (that benefit end consumers and) that smaller firms would not easily attain. There are undoubtedly industries (e.g. airlines and pharmaceuticals) in which the levels of investment are so high that only extremely large firms that may be quasi-monopolies in some areas of their businesses can survive.
Many governments regard these market niches as natural monopolies, and believe that the inability to allow full competition is balanced by government regulation. However, the companies in these niches tend to believe that they should avoid regulation, as they are entitled to their monopoly position by fiat.
In some cases, anti-competitive behavior can be difficult to distinguish from competition. For instance, a distinction must be made between product bundling, which is a legal market strategy, and product tying, which violates anti-trust law. Some advocates of laissez-faire capitalism (such as Monetarists, some Neoclassical economists, and the heterodox economists of the Austrian school) reject the term, seeing all "anticompetitive behavior" as forms of competition that benefit consumers.
[edit] Related Material
- cartel
- antitrust law
- predatory pricing
- Microeconomics
- Oligopoly
- price discrimination
- Natural monopoly
- secret rebate
- loss leader
- Austrian school
