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: Digital economy and innovation

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.

Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Will this be the century of youthful Asia?

Youthful Asia offers immense opportunities for investors, but this potential can only be realised if their infrastructure and energy needs are fulfilled.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global economy and trade Date: February 18, 2022
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Venture capital: a new breath of life for European entrepreneurship?

Whether the dynamism of European venture capital of the past two years can be sustained and kick start a credible alternative to bank finance in the European Union remains to be seen.

By: Maria Demertzis and Lionel Guetta-Jeanrenaud Topic: Banking and capital markets Date: February 10, 2022
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Blog Post

The dark side of artificial intelligence: manipulation of human behaviour

Transparency over systems and algorithms, rules and public awareness are needed to address potential danger of manipulation by artificial intelligence.

By: Georgios Petropoulos Topic: Digital economy and innovation Date: February 2, 2022
Read article
 

Blog Post

European governance

Opaque and ill-defined: the problems with Europe’s IPCEI subsidy framework

Lack of strict governance and transparency creates serious risk that fair competition within the single market will be undermined. Fundamental overhaul of the framework is needed.

By: Niclas Poitiers and Pauline Weil Topic: European governance, Macroeconomic policy Date: January 26, 2022
Read article
 

External Publication

European governance

EU borrowing—time to think of the generation after next

Financing post-pandemic recovery via EU borrowing has proved remarkably straightforward. So why keep it temporary?

By: Grégory Claeys, Rebecca Christie and Pauline Weil Topic: European governance, Macroeconomic policy Date: December 9, 2021
Read about event
 

Past Event

Past Event

Future of work and inclusive growth: Digital dialogues

An end of year series of digital discussions on the Future of Work and Inclusive Growth in Europe.

Speakers: Janine Berg, Arturo Franco, Stijn Broecke, Esther Lynch, Mario Mariniello, Laura Nurski, Leah Ruppanner, Nicolas Schmit, Kim Van Sparrentak and Tilman Tacke Topic: Digital economy and innovation, Inclusive growth Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: December 7, 2021
Read about event
 

Past Event

Past Event

China’s medium term outlook: Will innovation save China from becoming old before it becomes rich?

What can China do to stop the deceleration of its economy. Is innovation the solution?

Speakers: Jean-Francois Di Meglio, Alicia García-Herrero and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: Digital economy and innovation, Global economy and trade Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: December 1, 2021
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author
 

External Publication

Chinese economic statecraft: what to expect in the next five years?

Chapter from 'Storms Ahead: the Future Geoeconomic world order' on the expectations from the next five years of Chinese economic policy, published on 27 October 2021.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global economy and trade Date: November 26, 2021
Read article More by this author
 

Opinion

European governance

Growth and inflation after the pandemic in the EU

Countries hit comparatively hard during the financial crisis, helped also by domestic and European policies, are bouncing back from the pandemic faster than their peers.

By: Maria Demertzis Topic: European governance, Macroeconomic policy Date: November 18, 2021
Read article Download PDF
 

Policy Contribution

European governance

Next Generation EU borrowing: a first assessment

The Next Generation EU programme is radically changing the way the EU finances itself and interacts with financial markets. This paper assesses the first design decisions made by the European Commission and the issuances that have taken place so far. It also outlines the potential risks and opportunities linked to this upgrading of the EU borrowing.

By: Rebecca Christie, Grégory Claeys and Pauline Weil Topic: Banking and capital markets, European governance, Macroeconomic policy Date: November 10, 2021
Read article
 

Blog Post

European governance

Is the risk of stagflation real?

Most economic forecasts predict a return, in the medium-term, to pre-pandemic growth and inflation. Nevertheless, the European Central Bank and fiscal authorities need to be vigilant for signs of the contrary.

By: Monika Grzegorczyk, Francesco Papadia and Pauline Weil Topic: European governance, Macroeconomic policy Date: November 2, 2021
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Strong, balanced, sustainable and inclusive growth? The G20 and the pandemic

The G20 is not doing enough to support strong, balanced, sustainable and inclusive growth in the wake of COVID-19, with the poorest countries left behind by the recovery.

By: Suman Bery and Pauline Weil Topic: Global economy and trade Date: October 29, 2021
Load more posts