Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Competition Policy in Small Distant Open Economies: Some Lessons from the Economics Literature

Contents:

Author Info

  • Lewis Evans and Patrick Hughes

    ()
    (The Treasury)

Abstract

New Zealand is a small open economy that is remote from all major markets. The smallness and remoteness of New Zealand combine to imply that this country has, at least quantitatively, distinctive features for the regulation of economic activity by competition law. The isolation and small size of the economy mean that typically all but exporting firms are small as judged on a world scale, and that domestic markets are small and generally highly concentrated. This paper reviews the economic literature on the implications of an economy’s size and isolation for competition law. The literature suggests that principles underlying competition law do not change for small economies, but that the application of competition law should be different. In small economies, low regulatory and tax barriers to trade dominate the importance of competition law for good economic performance of domestic markets. In these economies, competition law should focus on economic benefit/detriment evaluations of mergers and trade practices rather than rules of thumb of the sort based on measures of market structure and indicators of competition, or those aimed at prohibiting particular practices per se. Producers’ surplus should not be de-emphasised in the calculation of benefits and detriments in small economies; particularly for activities that relate in any way to (potential) export activity. For any economy, particularly in the presence of competition, cooperation enhances economic performance in specific circumstances. In small economies cooperation can be particularly efficient-for example, in achieving scale and thereby export performance-although it may entail interaction among a large fraction of players in an industry. The approach that the literature suggests to the application of competition law in small economies places relatively heavy weight on dynamic efficiency as the criterion for competition law design and enforcement. It is squarely in accord with recommendations in the literature on desirable competition law for the so-called new economy.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2003/03-31/twp03-31.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Bibliographic Info

Paper provided by New Zealand Treasury in its series Treasury Working Paper Series with number 03/31.

as in new window
Length: 39
Date of creation: Dec 2003
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:nzt:nztwps:03/31

Contact details of provider:
Postal: New Zealand Treasury, PO Box 3724, Wellington, New Zealand
Phone: +64-4-472 2733
Fax: +64-4-473 0982
Web page: http://www.treasury.govt.nz
More information through EDIRC

Related research

Keywords: Small; Isolated; Economy; Antitrust; New Zealand; Producer Surplus: Consumer Surplus; Competition Law; Economic Benefit; Economic Detriment; Rule of Reason;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Spence, Michael, 1976. "Product Selection, Fixed Costs, and Monopolistic Competition," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 43(2), pages 217-35, June.
  2. Scotchmer, Suzanne, 2003. "The Political Economy of Intellectual Property Treaties," Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics, Working Paper Series, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics qt9j50z2gz, Berkeley Olin Program in Law & Economics.
  3. Jeffrey R. Campbell & Hugo Hopenhayn, 2003. "Market size matters," Working Paper Series, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago WP-03-12, Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
  4. Rosen, Sherwin, 1974. "Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 82(1), pages 34-55, Jan.-Feb..
  5. Posner, Richard A, 1975. "The Social Costs of Monopoly and Regulation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 83(4), pages 807-27, August.
  6. David S. Evans & Richard Schmalensee, 2001. "Some Economic Aspects of Antitrust Analysis in Dynamically Competitive Industries," NBER Working Papers 8268, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  7. Thierry Mayer & Pierre-Philippe Combes & Miren Lafourcade, 2004. "Can Business and Social Networks Explain the Border Effect Puzzle?," Econometric Society 2004 North American Winter Meetings, Econometric Society 330, Econometric Society.
  8. James E. Anderson & Eric van Wincoop, 2001. "Gravity with Gravitas: A Solution to the Border Puzzle," NBER Working Papers 8079, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  9. Kee, Hiau Looi & Hoekman, Bernard, 2007. "Imports, entry and competition law as market disciplines," European Economic Review, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 51(4), pages 831-858, May.
  10. James A. Brander & Barbara J. Spencer, 1983. "Trade Warfare: Tariffs and Cartels," NBER Working Papers 1193, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  11. Austan Goolsbee, 1998. "In a World Without Borders: The Impact of Taxes on Internet Commerce," NBER Working Papers 6863, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  12. AMIR, Rabah, 2003. "Market structure, scale economies and industry performance," CORE Discussion Papers, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE) 2003065, Université catholique de Louvain, Center for Operations Research and Econometrics (CORE).
  13. Mussa, Michael & Rosen, Sherwin, 1978. "Monopoly and product quality," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, Elsevier, vol. 18(2), pages 301-317, August.
  14. Carolyn L. Evans & James Harrigan, 2003. "Distance, Time, and Specialization," NBER Working Papers 9729, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  15. Mark Bils & Peter J. Klenow, 2000. "Quantifying Quality Growth," NBER Working Papers 7695, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  16. Michael Jensen, 2001. "Value Maximisation, Stakeholder Theory, and the Corporate Objective Function," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, European Financial Management Association, vol. 7(3), pages 297-317.
  17. Danny Quah, 2003. "Digital Goods and the New Economy," CEP Discussion Papers, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE dp0563, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  18. Waterson, Michael, 1987. " Recent Developments in the Theory of Natural Monopoly," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 1(1), pages 59-80.
  19. Pravin Krishna, 2003. "Are Regional Trading Partners "Natural"?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, University of Chicago Press, vol. 111(1), pages 202-231, February.
  20. Holger C. Wolf, 2000. "Intranational Home Bias In Trade," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 82(4), pages 555-563, November.
  21. Demsetz, Harold, 1982. "Barriers to Entry," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 72(1), pages 47-57, March.
  22. Lewis Evans & Neil Quigley & Jie Zhang, 2003. "Optimal price regulation in a growth model with monopolistic suppliers of intermediate goods," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 36(2), pages 463-474, May.
  23. Perry, Martin K, 1984. "Scale Economies, Imperfect Competition, and Public Policy," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(3), pages 313-33, March.
  24. Andrew K. Rose, 2000. "One money, one market: the effect of common currencies on trade," Economic Policy, CEPR;CES;MSH, CEPR;CES;MSH, vol. 15(30), pages 7-46, 04.
  25. Sanghoon Ahn, 2002. "Competition, Innovation and Productivity Growth: A Review of Theory and Evidence," OECD Economics Department Working Papers, OECD Publishing 317, OECD Publishing.
  26. Winter, Ralph A, 1993. "Vertical Control and Price versus Nonprice Competition," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, MIT Press, vol. 108(1), pages 61-76, February.
  27. C.C. von Weizsaker, 1980. "A Welfare Analysis of Barriers to Entry," Bell Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, The RAND Corporation, vol. 11(2), pages 399-420, Autumn.
  28. Robert E. Baldwin, 2000. "Trade and Growth: Still Disagreement about the Relationships," OECD Economics Department Working Papers, OECD Publishing 264, OECD Publishing.
  29. McCallum, John, 1995. "National Borders Matter: Canada-U.S. Regional Trade Patterns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, American Economic Association, vol. 85(3), pages 615-23, June.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
as in new window

Cited by:
  1. Jyoti Rahman, 2005. "Comparing Australian and United States productivity," Economic Roundup, Treasury, Australian Government, Treasury, Australian Government, issue 2, pages 27-45, June.
  2. Samuel Rutz, 2013. "Applying the Theory of Small Economies and Competition Policy: The Case of Switzerland," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, Springer, vol. 13(2), pages 255-272, June.
  3. Mark Obren & Bronwyn Howell, 2014. "The tyranny of distance prevails: HTTP protocol latency and returns to fast fibre internet access network deployment in remote economies," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer, Springer, vol. 52(1), pages 65-85, January.

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nzt:nztwps:03/31. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Web and Publishing Team, The Treasury).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.