Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Competition Policy, Private Sector Development and Poverty Reduction Capacity Building on Competition Policy in Select Countries of Eastern and Southern Africa (7Up3) International Perspectives Mauritius, 29 March, 2007 Roger Nellist Investment Climate Team Department for International Development, London Themes • Nature of competition • Competition links with poverty reduction • Competitive pressures and growth • Investment Climate and Growth • CP, PSD and PR - evidence and research • • • • challenges Impediments to competition Competition Assessment Framework Challenges in implementing CP Conclusions Page 2 Nature of Competition • Competition is vital for the functioning of a modern market economy • Competition, vs. fair competition • Competition is a process and not an ‘equilibrium event’; it is not automatic; and needs to be nurtured, promoted and protected Page 3 Competition Links with Poverty Reduction Think of people (poor) as: • Consumers • Employed • Entrepreneurs • Recipients of government-funded services Page 4 Links with Poverty Reduction • Direct benefits - fair competition enhances consumer welfare (prices, choice, standards?); essential private goods and services consumed by poor. • Indirect benefits through: - general growth enhancements; - access to sustainable livelihoods in formal sector (shared growth); • Publicly provided infrastructure and services (Govt procurement arrangements, and bid rigging) Page 5 Competition abuses hurt consumers • CUTS 7-Up3 identified: Unfair trade practices, collective price fixing, entry barriers, market sharing and bid rigging • • • • • • • Cartels: basic commodities - Bangladesh (e.g. rice, sugar, potatoes); drinking water - Lao PDR; brick making –Nepal Predatory pricing of beverages - Vietnam Bid-rigging: e.g. school construction- China; water pipes- Nepal; road construction and bridge buildingJapan; infrastructure construction- Vietnam Transport cartels – e.g. Bangladesh, Nepal and India International cartels e.g. vitamins Mergers reducing cement producer competition – India Evenett/Jenny research on Africa Page 6 Competition – the growth story • Level playing field for domestic SMEs (firms • • • • and jobs, globalisation) Free entry and exit - innovation, technology, productivity Intermediate inputs Investment climate (consistent competition framework helps investor confidence, as part of good regulatory regime) Growth (Inv + Productivity push out the PPF) NB: Competition Policy is complementary to privatisation and de-regulation reforms Page 7 More Competitive Pressure, More Innovation • Firm-level surveys confirm the importance of competitive pressure for incentives to innovative and increase productivity Source: WDR, 2005 Page 8 Private Investment Has Grown Faster in Countries with Better Investment Climates Source: WDR, 2005 Average 1984-2000 based on International Country Risk Guide’s index of “Investment Profile” Page 9 Quote “If each Indian state could attain the best practice in India in terms of regulation and infrastructure, the economy should grow about two percentage points faster.” Investment Climate Assessment (ICA) of India, World Bank, 2002 Page 10 Roots of Growth and Poverty Reduction to be Found in Improving Investment Climate WDR2005: Investment climate reforms in, for example China, India, and Uganda, have been associated with: Dramatic increase in private investment/GDP Dramatic fall in poverty Page 11 Competition Policy, PSD and Poverty reduction • Assembling the evidence: - What are we examining? - Theoretical, anecdotal, empirical? • Research challenges: - attribution (CP reforms often part of a package) - paucity of data for DCs - timing of benefits Page 12 Assessing the state of Competition Recognise: • Public sector as well as private sector impediments to competition; • Political/economy as well as technical, legal and economic impediments - vested interests (institutional, commercial, individuals) Page 13 DFID’s Competition Assessment Framework (2007) • How to select sectors and markets for assessment • How to analyse competition: - Identify the relevant markets and the competitors - Examine the market structure - Consider vested interests - Look for barriers to entry - Look for signs of anti-competitive conduct by firms - Ascertain if other government policies or institutions limit competition • Draw conclusions Page 14 Competition Studies of Key Sectors in India: 2006-2007 • • • • • • • • • • • • Manufacturing State Policies: Passenger Transportation in six states Pesticides and Cement Road goods Transport: Mumbai region Energy Telecommunications Food Grains: three eastern states Tea Auctions Cartels Bilateral Treaties Competition authority-Regulator interface Enterprise Compliance Guidelines Page 15 Possible Further Competition Studies in India: 2007-2008 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Pharmaceuticals Railways Gas downstream Mining Manufacturing (high impact industries) Insurance Health and Education Banking Fertilisers Subsidies Standards The public Sector and procurement The legal system Property rights Domestic barriers to trade Page 16 Challenges in implementing Competition Policy • CP is at a ‘crossroads’ • Conflict with other policy objectives? • Persistence of natural monopolies and • • • • tension with sector-specific regulators Resistance from vested interests Lack of political will and independence Small (vulnerable?) DC markets Capacity constraints Page 17 Conclusions • Fair competition matters - for sustaining growth • • • • • • • • • and poverty reduction It matters in Africa!! Need pro-market commitment from top Need bottom-up advocacy Appropriate policies, laws, institutions Adequate financial and human resources Operational independence Beware of vested interests, block reforms Assess and address the real impediments to competition Must deal with some structural issues (e.g. relationship with sector regulators) Page 18