Competition Act 2002
From Advocatespedia, The Law Encyclopedia
There is a growing recognition that a flexible, dynamic and competitive private sector is essential to fostering sustained economic development. Promoting effective competition spurs firms to focus on efficiency and improves consumer welfare by offering greater choice of higher-quality products and services at lower prices. It also promotes greater accountability and transparency in government-business relations and decision making, helps reduce corruption, lobbying, and rent seeking. In addition, it provides opportunities for broadly based participation in the economy and for sharing in the benefits of economic growth.
Economic theory suggests that prices and quantities in a competitive market equilibrate to levels that generate efficient outcomes at a given point of time. Competition is therefore, beneficial as it provides to consumers wider choice and provides sellers with stronger incentives to minimize costs, so eliminating waste. Competition increases the likelihood that cost savings resulting from efficiency gains will be passed on to a firm's customers, who may be either final consumers or intermediary customers (in which case costs of those firms are also lowered). Ample empirical evidence supports these arguments. The importance of competition for achieving a higher rate of innovation and adoption of new technologies over time is critical for sustaining rapid growth. Yet it is not automatic, and is not the same as laissez faire. In fact, there are reasons to believe that less mature markets tend to be more, rather than less, vulnerable to anti-competitive practices than the markets of developed countries.
(a) High "natural" entry barriers due to inadequate business infrastructure, including distribution channels, and (sometimes) intrusive regulatory regimes;
(b) Asymmetries of information in both product and credit markets; and
(c) A greater proportion of local (non-tradable) markets. Competition also serves to diffuse socio-economic power, broadening participation in economic, social, and political advances while ensuring opportunities for new entrepreneurs. Moreover, it can facilitate realization of the benefits for the domestic economy of integrating into international trade and investment patterns.
The Indian economy remained subject to controls and regulations for several decades, such as industrial licensing, foreign exchange restrictions, small scale industry protection, control on foreign investment and technologies, quantitative restrictions on imports, administered prices, and control on capital issues. The domestic industry was thus insulated from competition. The economic consequences of this policy regime, though initially beneficial, were reflected in a poor rate of economic growth, low levels of productivity and efficiency, absence of international competitiveness, suboptimal size of businesses, and outdated and inefficient technologies in various sectors.
India has therefore witnessed two phases of development process with different policy regimes and institutional frameworks. In the first phase, since independence, the transformation and development of the Indian economy took place within a planned, rigidly regulated and relatively closed economic framework. In the second phase, since 1991, when the country embarked upon reform process and embraced market oriented policies. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, need for liberalization policies was recognized and a range of policy and regulatory reforms were initiated, such as delicensing of industry, shrinking the monopoly of the public sector industries (other than those where strategic and security concerns dominated), removal of quantitative restrictions on imports, market determined exchange rate, liberalization of foreign direct investment, capital market reforms, liberalizing the financial markets, reduction in small scale industry reservations, and a much greater role for the private sector in infrastructure industries such as power, port, transport and communications.
UNDER WORLD COMMON LAW (*COMPETITION POLICY)
The World Bank and OECD in its Report “A Framework for the Design and Implementation of Competition Law and Policy” pointed out that a dynamic and competitive environment, underpinned by sound competition law and policy, is an essential characteristic of a successful market economy. Effective enforcement of competition law and active competition advocacy can also be powerful catalysts for successful economic restructuring. This in turn fosters flexibility and mobility of resources, which in the current global business environment are critical elements for the competitiveness of firms and industries across nations. Although the field of competition law and policy is evolving rapidly and includes many different viewpoints on specific issues, recognition is growing that effective competition law is important in shaping business culture and that its proper implementation needs to allow for the education of business people, government officials, the judiciary, and the interested public.
Competition policies cover a much broader set of instruments than competition law, and typically include all policies aimed at increasing the intensity of competition or rivalry in local and national markets by lowering entry barriers and opportunities for harmful coordination, to ensure that markets work effectively and serve the interests of all citizens. Competition law is only a subset of a nation's competition policies. Competition policies typically include pro-competition approaches to trade, investment, sectoral regulation, and consumer protection. The barriers to international or interregional trade, restrictions on Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) and technology transfers, restrictions on entry in regulated network utility industries, regulations affecting the registration of new enterprises and the taxation and corporate governance of existing enterprises, and rules on marketing practices all influence the extent of competitive pressures in markets and so are appropriate concerns of competition policies. In many countries, competition authorities have become the focal point for consultations and putting forward pro-competition viewpoints across a broad range of policy areas.
Asian Development Bank in “During economic transition or reforms”, observed that “the benefits of an open market economy cannot be fully realized unless restrictions on competition are removed. Opening markets is not enough by itself for countries to begin reaping the benefits of competition; firms will still find incentives to engage in anti-competitive practices. Thus, the intended benefits of trade reforms may not be realized without active enforcement of competition law. This highlights the importance of having faith in the benefits of competition from an early stage of economic growth and of incorporating competition policy into the broader economic policy framework.” Prof. Paul Geroski, former Chairman, Competition Commission of the United Kingdom observed that “Competition policy is about ensuring that markets are, and remain, competitive. This brings benefits to consumers eventually in all the ways. However, eliminating anti-competitive practices and dismantling monopoly positions that lead to abuses also benefit firms whose business suffers from these practices and abuses. It is worth emphasizing that many of the benefits that emanate from proper application of competition policy are felt in the first instance by firms. This is important for those who seem to think of competition policy as an added and unnecessary burden on business. Competition policy is sometimes a burden on business, but only on those businesses that try to unfairly disadvantage their rivals in ways that reduce their competitive abilities or incentives to compete vigorously”.