Blog Post

Why competition policy matters for growth?

Economic literature suggests that competition can have broad economic effects in three areas: the total amount of economic wealth available in the market at a given point of time, companies’ productive process, and their incentives to innovate or improve the quality of their products.

By: Date: February 18, 2014 Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy

See also event ‘Competition policy enforcement as a driver for growth

Economic literature suggests that competition can have broad economic effects in three areas: the total amount of economic wealth available in the market at a given point of time, companies’ productive process, and their incentives to innovate or improve the quality of their products.

In the first area, any transaction creates some value. An increase in prices resulting from a reduction of competition in the market, however, does not automatically translate into a one-to-one shift of value from the buyer to the seller. Unless consumer demand is perfectly inelastic (that is: purchasing habits do not vary with price), some of the value that was enjoyed previously by the buyers disappears and does not translate into higher profits. This happens because a number of transactions no longer take place, because some buyers drop out of the market. This deadweight loss is inversely correlated with the degree of competition in the market. By triggering a misallocation of resources, lack of competition may therefore imply a smaller cake to be divided between sellers and buyers (Tirole, 1988). In other words, from a static perspective, lower levels of competitions are associated with lower levels of aggregate wealth, everything else being equal.

Competition also affects companies’ productivity. Two main effects are identified in the literature. First, competition raises managers’ incentives to out-perform competitors and, therefore, is often associated with higher levels of total factor productivity (Van Reenen, 2011). Second, competition operates a Darwinian selection: only the most efficient firms survive high competitive pressure. Therefore, when competition is healthy, production is rationalised naturally because of the churn of inefficient firms leaving the market and efficient firms entering and prospering in it (see, for instance, Disney et al, 2003). Competition has ambiguous effects on companies’ incentives to innovate. While actual competition increases R&D because innovation offers an opportunity to escape competition and achieve higher post-innovation profits, the prospect of future competition might indicate smaller post-innovation rents and, therefore, reduce incentives to innovate in the first place (Shumpeter, 1939). This dichotomy has been identified in the data and described as the “inverse-U” relationship between competition and innovation (Aghion et al, 2002). This explains why competition policy cannot be used as an instrument to fight market power per se: a degree of market power can sometimes be the necessary price to pay to achieve higher overall welfare levels.

Correct implementation of competition policy would take those short-term and long-term effects into account, ensuring that customers would access products or services at competitive prices without dumping incentives to innovate. Most scholars agree that this is best achieved by antitrust authorities preserving market competition and not defending competitors (Motta, 2004).

Likewise, many economists tend to be skeptical about the effectiveness of policies designed to create or nourish national champions, while developing economies, such as China, are often blamed for their pro-domestic industry subsidisation policy. National-champions policies are based on the assumption that governments are better equipped than markets to select the most efficient companies. Industrial policy is however often captured by vested interests, and rent-seeking politicians are unlikely to out-perform markets in the process of selecting companies that maximise social welfare (Persson and Tabellini, 2000). On the other hand, economic patriotism, the other main potential explanation for national-champions policies, has little backing in the empirical literature. There is no case for favouring companies on the basis of their nationality, on the assumption that domestic companies would be more beneficial to the domestic economy. Studies on several sectors in different countries generally show a positive impact on productivity and no significant impact on employment following foreign takeovers (see OECD, 2009, for an overview, or Bernand and Jensen, 2007, for the US).  Moreover, foreign direct investment is frequently associated with significant positive spillover effects on domestic firms’ productivity (for example, see Wei and Liu, 2006, for a study on the benefits of FDI for China’s manufacturing sector).

References

Aghion, P., Blundell, R., Griffith, R., Howitt, P., Prantl, S. (2009). The effects of entry on incumbent innovation and productivity. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91(1), 20-32.

Bernard, A. B., Jensen, J. B. (2007). Firm structure, multinationals, and manufacturing plant deaths. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(2), 193-204.

Disney, R., Haskel, J., Heden, Y. (2003). Restructuring and productivity growth in UK manufacturing. The Economic Journal, 113(489), 666-694.

Motta, M. (2004). Competition policy: theory and practice. Cambridge University Press.

OECD (2009). Employment and industrial relations – 2008 Annual Report on the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.

Persson, T., Tabellini, G. (2004). Constitutional rules and fiscal policy outcomes. American Economic Review, 25-45.

Schumpeter, J. A. (1939). Business cycles (Vol. 1, pp. 161-74). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Tirole, J. (1988). The Theory of Industrial Organization. MIT Press Books, Ed. 1, Vol. 1.

Van Reenen, J. (2011). Big ideas: How competition improves management and productivity. CentrePiece – The Magazine for Economic Performance 340, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.

Wei, Y., Liu, X. (2006). Productivity spillovers from R&D, exports and FDI in China’s manufacturing sector. Journal of international business studies, 37(4), 544-557.


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

View comments
Read about event More on this topic

Upcoming Event

Mar
21
08:30

Rethinking industrial policy in the digital age: challenges for Europe

Challenges of the digital age.

Speakers: Philipp-Bastian Brutscher, Teunis Brosens, Jacques Bughin, Maarten Camps, Andreas Geiss, Tony Graziano, Mathew Heim, J. Scott Marcus, Philip Marsden, Reinhilde Veugelers and Georg Zachmann Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

Russia's growth problem

After the 2014-2016 currency crisis, Russia’s economy has returned to growth, albeit at a slow pace. In this Policy Contribution, the authors analyse the potential causes of mediocre growth performance, as well as its impact on Russia's economic and political relationships. They also include their recommendations for the future.

By: Marek Dabrowski and Antoine Mathieu Collin Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 7, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Market power and its implications to competition policy

What are the reasons behind the global trends in corporate margins and market concentration?

Speakers: Adina Claici, Fiona Scott Morton, Nicolas Petit, Georgios Petropoulos and Arno Rasek Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: January 16, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author

External Publication

Vertical restraints and e-commerce

This article wishes to provide guidance on how the new vertical restraints linked to e-commerce should be treated and recommendations over the priorities and challenges that need to be addressed.  

By: Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: January 15, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Empirical trends in markups and market power: implications for productivity and growth

Empirical trends in markups and market power: their implications for productivity and growth

Speakers: Chiara Criscuolo, Fabien Curto Millet, Jeffrey Franks, Jan De Loecker, Reinhilde Veugelers and Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: January 15, 2019
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Emerging Trends in Competition Policy - A Global Perspective

How is global competition policy evolving given the challenges of the digital era?

Speakers: Cristina Caffarra, Antonio Capobianco, Kris Dekeyser, William Kovacic and Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: December 11, 2018
Read article More by this author

Blog Post

Economic policy challenges in Southern and Eastern Mediterranean

For a long time, southern and eastern Mediterranean countries struggled with serious socio-economic challenges and dysfunctional economic systems and policies. Marek Dabrowski reviews the challenges the region has to face to get out of a low growth trap.

By: Marek Dabrowski Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 11, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Opinion

The great macro divergence

Global growth is expected to continue in 2019 and 2020, albeit at a slower pace. Forecasters are notoriously bad, however, at spotting macroeconomic turning points and the road ahead is hard to read. Potential obstacles abound.

By: Jean Pisani-Ferry Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: December 5, 2018
Read article More by this author

Opinion

The world deserves a more effective G20

As the presidency shifts from Argentina to Japan at Buenos Aires (and then to Saudi Arabia) it is worth asking why the G20 has endured this long and what it needs to remain relevant in a dramatically changed world.

By: Suman Bery Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Date: November 29, 2018
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

Preliminary observations on the European Commission’s Android decision

Following the announcement that Alphabet (Google) will appeal the European Commission's ruling on the competition case against its Android mobile operating system, the authors here assess Google's compliance while its appeal is pending as well as the likelihood of a net positive outcome for societal welfare.

By: Mathew Heim and J. Scott Marcus Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: November 27, 2018
Read about event More on this topic

Past Event

Past Event

Competition policy for the digital age

How can competition policy adapt to market changes caused by new technologies, digital platforms and big data companies?

Speakers: Ana Botin, Riccardo Falconi, Jorge Padilla, Tommaso Valletti and Reinhilde Veugelers Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: November 21, 2018
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Backstage: Japan’s inflation problem and monetary policy options

Bruegel senior fellow Zsolt Darvas welcomes Sayuri Shirai, professor at Keio University, visiting scholar at the Asian Development Bank Institute and former Member of the Policy Board of the Bank of Japan (BOJ), for a discussion of the Japanese monetary policy outlook. 

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: October 26, 2018
Load more posts