By: Diane Coyle (Project Syndicate)
Ask any economist whether competition is always a good thing, and the answer will be a resounding yes. After all, competition powers what the late William Baumol termed the “innovation machine” of the modern market economy.
Through competition, businesses spur each other to increase sales by serving customers better, whether by cutting prices, improving service, or offering innovative products. Innovation has driven the extraordinary improvements in health and quality of life over the past two centuries. And the world will need further creativity to solve pressing challenges such as providing low-carbon energy and transport or developing new vaccines and medicines to tackle the next pandemic or wave of anti-microbial resistance.
Competition is not the only driver of innovation, of course: publicly funded research and government regulation also are essential. But the contest among businesses is how brilliant ideas serving society are diffused at scale. There is ample evidence that strong competition is associated with higher productivity. Less encouragingly, studies also suggest that competition has diminished over time in the United States and other advanced economies.
Yet, among the wider public, “competition” has recently become something of a derogatory term, with some commentators claiming that it has enabled the emergence of dominant players in the digital domain and sectors ranging from food to finance. Adverse consequences include a loss of individual privacy resulting from digital surveillance and rising prices for over-processed foods.
To an economist, this criticism sounds paradoxical: If a market is dominated by a single firm or a small handful of companies, then by definition it is not competitive. So, what explains the newfound aversion to competition among some non-economists?
One likely explanation is that many people take the word “competition” to be a synonym for “business,” and regard pro-competition statements as indicating a market-oriented ideological stance. This interpretation runs through Competition Overdose, a recent book by the legal scholars Ariel Ezrachi of the University of Oxford and Maurice Stucke of the University of Tennessee. For Ezrachi and Stucke, “competition” means a race to the bottom in terms of safety or quality standards, or price gouging, in the interests of increasing corporate profits…
Featured News
FTC Sues to Block Tempur Sealy’s $4.3 Billion Acquisition of Mattress Firm
Oct 24, 2024 by
CPI
Mexican Watchdog Proposes Fintech Reforms to Boost Financial Inclusion
Oct 24, 2024 by
CPI
AMA and ISMS File Antitrust Lawsuit Against MultiPlan Over Alleged Price-Fixing Scheme
Oct 24, 2024 by
CPI
Biden Administration Announces New AI Strategy to Boost National Security
Oct 24, 2024 by
CPI
Google Agrees to Provide AI-Related Documents in Monopoly Case
Oct 24, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Chevron
Oct 24, 2024 by
CPI
A Quartet of Decisions That Cripple Agencies
Oct 24, 2024 by
Richard J. Pierce
Goodbye, Chevron: Rediscovering the Virtues of an Independent Judiciary
Oct 24, 2024 by
Alexander Volokh
A New Era of Deference: From Chevron to Loper Bright
Oct 24, 2024 by
Daniel E. Walters
Loper Bright and Antitrust: Limited Impact on Enforcement, but a Clear Constraint on FTC Rulemaking
Oct 24, 2024 by
David Kully, Lynn Calkins & Kenneth Racowski