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 article More on this topic

Opinion

China's dual banking system: consolidation as the final solution for weak small banks

There are fundamental solvency and liquidity issues for some small Chinese banks, widely influencing both the bond market as well as the broader financial sector. Given the difficulties in creating a level playing field between small and large banks, there is an expectation that small banks will continue to under-perform.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Gary Ng Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation Date: September 16, 2019
Read about event

Past Event

Past Event

China-EU investment relations: Exploring competition and industrial policies

This is a closed-door workshop jointly organised by MERICS and Bruegel looking at China-EU investment relations.

Speakers: Miguel Ceballos Barón, Alicia García-Herrero, Mikko Huotari, Yi Huang and Xu Sitao Topic: Finance & Financial Regulation, Global Economics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: September 9, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Backstage at BAM19: Designing a competition policy fit for Europe's needs.

Backstage at the Bruegel Annual Meetings, Rebecca Christie talks with Mathew Heim on competition policy.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: September 5, 2019
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

European champion-ships: industrial champions and competition policy

This blog post investigates the debate on whether European competition rules should foster European industrial champions, or allow national champions to grow to a European scale. It explores the criteria that one would intuitively ascribe to industrial champions, illustrating the difficulties in defining either ‘European’ or ‘Champion’. It then conducts a brief look into whether EU Merger decisions have impeded the formation of ‘European Champions’.

By: Mathew Heim and Catarina Midoes Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: July 26, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

Modernising European Competition Policy: A Brief Review of Member States’ Proposals

French, German and Polish governments have jointly proposed options for modernising EU competition policy. The debate to recalibrate European competition rules was already well underway. So, it is not surprising that proposals are consistent with other statements made by France and Germany. Yet, proposals do not address current issues weighing on the international competition community, such as conglomerate effects theory or algorithmic collusion.

By: Mathew Heim Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: July 24, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

How should the relationship between competition policy and industrial policy evolve in the European Union?

Competition policy aims to ensure that market practices and strategies do not reduce consumer welfare. Industrial policy, meanwhile, aims at securing framework conditions that are favourable to industrial competitiveness, and deals with (sector-specific) production rules as well as the direction of public funds and tax measures. But, how should competition policy and industrial policy interact? Is industrial policy contradicting the aims of competition policy by promoting specific industrial interests?

By: Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy Date: July 15, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Deep Focus: Making a success of EU cohesion policy

Bruegel senior fellow Zsolt Darvas talks to Sean Gibson in this Deep Focus podcast about how the EU can improve its cohesion policy, citing the best examples of its implementation and stressing the methodological difficulties in measuring its effectiveness.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 20, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

External Publication

Effectiveness of cohesion policy: learning from the project characteristics that produce the best results

This study by Zsolt Darvas, Antoine Mathieu Collin, Jan Mazza, and Catarina Midões analyses the characteristics of cohesion policy projects that can contribute to successful outcomes. Their analysis is based on a literature survey, an econometric analysis and interviews with stakeholders. About two dozen project characteristics are considered, and their association with economic growth is studied using a novel methodology. Based on the findings, the study concludes with recommendations for cohesion policy reform.

By: Zsolt Darvas, Antoine Mathieu Collin, Jan Mazza and Catarina Midoes Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 11, 2019
Read article More on this topic

Blog Post

A European atlas of economic success and failure

Economic growth was diverse across EU regions, yet it is crucial to control for region-specific factors in assessing growth performance. We find that there are rather successful regions in many EU countries, suggesting that the EU can provide a good framework for growth. Yet the worst performers are more concentrated in some countries, suggesting that country-specific factors can play a major role in regional development.

By: Zsolt Darvas, Jan Mazza and Catarina Midoes Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: June 3, 2019
Read article Download PDF More on this topic

Policy Contribution

How to improve European Union cohesion policy for the next decade

This policy contribution investigates the performance of the design, implementation and effectiveness of cohesion policy, the most evaluated EU tool for promoting economic convergence. By analysing the effects of cohesion policy on economic growth through reviewing literature, conducting empirical research by comparing regions, as well as considering attitudes and expectations collected through interviewing stakeholders, the authors provide reform recommendations.

By: Zsolt Darvas, Jan Mazza and Catarina Midoes Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 23, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Blog Post

The latest European growth-rate estimates

The quarterly growth rate of the euro area in Q1 2019 was 0.4% (1.5% annualized), considerably higher than the low growth rates of the previous two quarters. This blog reviews the reaction to the release of these numbers and the discussion they have triggered about the euro area’s economic challenges.

By: Konstantinos Efstathiou Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Date: May 20, 2019
Read article More on this topic More by this author

Podcast

Podcast

Deep Focus: Reforming and rejuvenating Russia’s economy

Bruegel fellow Marek Dabrowski talks to Sean Gibson about the underlying causes of Russia's slow emergence from economic crisis, in an episode of the Deep Focus podcast series.

By: The Sound of Economics Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: May 9, 2019
Load more posts