By Francisco Beneke*
I was talking to a friend at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition with whom I share an office, and he pointed out to me a risk to which antitrust authorities in developing countries are exposed and a good way of protecting them from it. His point was simple but brilliant. Let me tell you briefly what our conversation was about.
Haris pointed out to me that in the course of the proceedings, a multinational could subtly (or not so subtly) make the threat that, should it be enjoined from a certain conduct and imposed a fine, it would find it necessary to cease operations in the country in question adducing any business justification, such as unprofitability. Let’s say a pharmaceutical company is being tried for impeding parallel imports in a country where this is perfectly legal. If it were enjoined from entering into contractual provisions that make these imports harder in order to sustain a higher price for its medicines, the company may say that it would be forced to leave the market. If operation with the lower price due to competing imports would still be profitable, this hardball tactic could still make sense if the size of the market is so small as to render any effects on global profits negligible. The purpose would be to send a message and actually carrying out the threat would signal that the company means business.
The practical implications could put the antitrust authority in an awkward situation. The central government may not be so happy with losing a source of tax revenue. Workers will certainly not like their sudden unemployment. To make things worse, consumers will lose some of their welfare because of the supply contraction. It is easy to see how the antitrust authority may have more at stake than the multinational corporation.
On the other hand, what if this country suddenly becomes a part of an economic union with a common competition policy? The firm will be enjoined from sustaining price differences that are based solely on its market power and not in different costs in each country (in practice that would translate to the ones it can prove to the authority). Now the threat of leaving would have to involve a bigger market, and if such new market is large enough to offset the benefits of sending a message then the company cannot make a credible commitment to cease operations. It is simply not in its best interest. In short, Haris’ argument was that integration of markets and competition policy protects smaller member countries of such threats.
I am aware that the example raises some other issues, such as the desirability of addressing price discrimination within antitrust proceedings, but the point applies to any kind of anticompetitive behavior too. Less controversially, we could imagine the same kind of threat involving a cartel. Integration is not easy, but there are good reasons to pursue it.
*Co-editor, Developing World Antitrust