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
Public hearings on the Walmart/Massmart merger: Government’s perspective Presentation to the Portfolio Committee on Economic Development 21 July 2011 Presentation parameters • Avoiding referring to issues subject to judicial decision • Not commenting on Competition Tribunal’s decision and reasons (which are a matter of public record) • Focusing on the impact of the merger and mergers in general – on employment, industrial development, local manufacturing and economic development Competition Act (1) • Purpose of the Act includes developmental aims – – To promote the … adaptability and development of the economy –… – To promote employment and advance the social and economic welfare of South Africans –… – To ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises have an equitable opportunity to participate in the economy – To promote a great spread of ownership, in particular to increases the ownership stakes of historically disadvantaged persons Competition Act (2) • The Act specifically provides for “public interest” issues to be considered, even where competition will not be negatively affected • The Commission or Tribunal must consider the effect the merger will have on – – A particular industrial sector or region – Employment – The ability of small businesses, or firms controlled or owned by historically disadvantaged persons, to become competitive – The ability of national industries to compete in international markets Competition Act (3) • Section 18(1) of the Act empowers the Minister of Economic Development to intervene in any merger to protect the public interest Government policy (1) • Relevance of government policy – Departments believe that the merger is likely to have a negative impact on employment – Employment is a factor that the Tribunal is obliged to consider in determining whether the merger can be justified on public interest grounds – Government policy informed by the unemployment situation in the country • SA ranked among the ten countries with the lowest level of employment in the world • Fewer than half of all working age South Africans in income-generating employment • Official unemployment rate of 25% • 40% of those between 16 and 30 unemployed (Q1 2010) Government policy (2) • Ruling party manifesto emphasises employment creation as one of five key priorities • New Growth Path adopted by Cabinet in October 2010 is focused on employment creation – Identifies sectors with high employment potential and interventions to maximise this potential – Identifies macro and micro-interventions to create an enabling environment for employment creation – Received widespread support from social partners Government policy (3) • Government’s Industrial Policy Action Plan (IPAP2) is also focused on employment creation – Seeks to strengthen the productive sectors of the economy and promote local procurement – Identifies key manufacturing sectors that government will support – Received widespread support from social partners • Food security concerns – If value chains disintegrate, agriculture, agro-processing and food production become unviable – SA economy will become more vulnerable to international price and currency fluctuations and more affected by international food shortages Basic chronology • 3 November 2010 – Merger notification • 11 February – Commission recommends merger without conditions • 24-25 February 2011 – Departments intervene • 22-25 March 2011 – Hearings on the merger and discovery hearings • 9-16 May 2011 – Hearings on the merger Dialogue with Walmart/Massmart • EDD facilitated dialogue between unions and merger parties • EDD also engaged merger parties to try to concretise their vague commitments on procurement • Commission in making its recommendation without conditions assumed these discussions would result in undertakings that would be captured in the Tribunal order • This did not materialise which necessitated the intervention of the departments in the Competition Tribunal hearings • As a result of government’s intervention the merger parties’ undertakings were captured in the Tribunal order Rationale for intervention • From government heads of argument, which are public record: • Merger of the size of the Walmart/Massmart transaction could undermine government’s policies focused on employment creation • Strong likelihood of significant replacement of domestic purchases with imports – Apparent even from the limited discovery granted by the Tribunal – Research commissioned by government – Scope of Walmart’s global purchasing power and global sourcing strategy • Negative impact on local employment, output of particular sectors and the eclipsing of SME and HDI firms Walmart facts • Centralised procurement is a pivotal feature of Walmart’s business model • Walmart’s revenue is estimated to be $408 billion – South Africa’s GDP is $354 billion • If treated as a country, Walmart would have a GDP larger than 75% of countries worldwide • Walmart’s procurement division employs 1400 employees sourcing from 6000 factories in 65 countries • In 1995 no more than 5% of Walmart products were imported, by 2005 this figure stood at 60% Impact of this merger • Government believes that given global purchasing power of Walmart, the merged entity will significantly increase imports and reduce purchases from local suppliers • This will affect entire value chains from the suppliers of raw materials and components to the suppliers of the finished product • Commissioned research estimates that a 1% increase in imports will result in 4000 job losses in South Africa • Government believes a ripple effect in the sector is inevitable – competitors of the merged entity will also import more and procure less from local suppliers Dispelling some myths (1) • Myth: South Africa is adopting a protectionist stance – South Africa has an open trade regime, with lower aggregate tariffs than many other developing countries – SA trade policy is aligned with its industrial policy – Judicious and selective use of a variety of policy instruments supports local employment • Myth: This merger is about foreign direct investment – Massmart, the local company, is 72% foreign-owned – There is unlikely to be a change in the level of foreign ownership – SA seeks FDI that will help rebuild the productive sectors of the economy – If the impact was on the same scale as the Walmart/Massmart merger, government’s stance towards a merger between local companies would have been the same Dispelling some myths (2) • Myth: Other countries are much more open to FDI – Investment Canada Act makes provision for a "net benefit" assessment for FDI assessing • the effect on the level of economic activity in Canada, on employment; on resource processing; on the utilization of parts and services produced in Canada and on exports from Canada; • the degree and significance of participation by Canadians in the Canadian business or new Canadian business and in any industry or industries in Canada; • the effect of the investment on productivity, industrial efficiency, technological development, product innovation and product variety in Canada; • the effect of the investment on competition within any industry in Canada; • the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic and cultural policies; and • the contribution of the investment to Canada's ability to compete in world markets – A recent example of where this provision was used to block an investment into Canada was the BHP Billiton bid for Potash in which the Minister of Industry found that the company had not satisfied the requirement that the investment would create a net benefit for Canada Dispelling some myths (3) • Myth: Government seeks to protect monopolies or inefficiency – SA general retail market is already highly competitive • Myth: It is unfair to impose conditions on Walmart – Conditions proposed are merger-specific – specifically intended to remedy effects of the merger – Conditions appropriate to Walmart, given its size and specific business model which, if applied in SA, would have serious negative consequences • Myth: Government seeks to disadvantage poorer consumers – Access to money for the poor attained through access to employment – Our consumption sectors are growing at twice the rate of our productive sectors - unsustainable Dispelling some myths (4) • Myth: Government’s approach is out of line with the rest of the world – Governments act on a public mandate given by citizens during election campaigns – In other jurisdictions transactions are prohibited or conditions imposed upon them by the executive authority – In the US, some public authorities have prohibited Walmart from operating in their areas (example of New York) or imposed conditions on their entry into the market – The German Supreme Court found that Walmart Germany was guilty of illegal predatory pricing of certain products Concluding remarks (1) • Government is seeking to protect the public interest by ensuring that the merger does not undermine employment, industrial development, small business and firms controlled by historically disadvantaged individuals • Because of Government's participation in the Tribunal proceedings highly relevant but insufficient information about the effect of the transaction on local procurement and employment in South Africa was made available by the merging parties • Through this process Government has demonstrated that there is a substantial public interest concern in this merger Concluding remarks (2) • In this case, Government believes that evidence in the possession of Walmart/Massmart would confirm the extent of the negative impact of the merger • Government has now applied to review the Tribunal's decision on the merger and the process it adopted in the merger hearing - it is essential that public interest concerns are properly ventilated in Tribunal proceedings after merging parties have made adequate discovery of information and relevant witnesses have had sufficient time to make oral submissions • Government supports a transparent, independent and expeditious merger review process, in which all key stakeholders, including Government, can engage meaningfully in order to ensure outcomes which are pro-competitive and in the public interest