Comments on Shiro Armstrong "Intellectual property and wealth transfers in the Trans-Pacific Partnership", 31/03/2013, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/03/31/intellectual-property-and-wealth-transfers-in-the-trans-pacific-partnership/
It may be the case that both theories and empirical studies can show pervasive and/or inconclusive results that would make the policy issue difficult to follow.
It is understandable that there needs some protection for IP because with no protection, there is little or no incentive for commercial research, innovation and invention which involves costs.
However, how much protection is needed to be optimal is anther issue.
It seems a time period is one of the ingredients of IP protection. But there should be other dimensions, such as a total amount although this is likely to be a case dependent, given the costs of each case are different.
The total amount or maximum amount should be linked to costs to allow a objectively set reasonable rents be extracted to maintain enough incentives but also allow other benefits to be realised.
Showing posts with label competition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label competition. Show all posts
2013-04-02
2012-02-07
Why Australian have to pay higher interest rates and higher retail prices?
Comments on David Uren "Politicians make lousy bankers" 7/02/2012, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/politicians-make-lousy-bankers/story-e6frg9qo-1226264125617
I've lost the copy of my comments but will get it when it is available from the Australian.
I've lost the copy of my comments but will get it when it is available from the Australian.
2009-07-03
Government should be able to increase competition in supermarket in Australia
Comments on Font Michael Costa “Not so super markets”, 3/07/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25724260-5013480,00.html
Costa discussed an important issue for a more competitive supermarket in Australia, that is, the physical environment for potential competitors to contest with the existing majors. Planning processes and practices may be a factor and that should be addressed by government.
Comments by Sven Lotzvie of Brisbane are also insightful. Australia does suffer from small sizes in the world of globalisation. Government restrictions on international entry and competition are unhelpful to a more competitive market. Those restrictions need to be removed.
There is also an issue of unfair discrimination due to the lack of competition that also needs to be addressed. This unfair discrimination is the practice by a super marketer to charge the same item with different prices at different locations with no differences in cost factors.
Competition watchdog should be able to address this issue. Of course, this requires the competition watchdog to work efficiently and smartly as possible. It needs to be more diligent itself.
By addressing this issue appropriately, the adverse effects of past planning legacy on competition can be minimised. It also lessens the needs for every super market location to have available space for competitors.
The federal government thus has several tasks to do to increase the competition of super markets in Australia. They should not be too difficult.
Costa discussed an important issue for a more competitive supermarket in Australia, that is, the physical environment for potential competitors to contest with the existing majors. Planning processes and practices may be a factor and that should be addressed by government.
Comments by Sven Lotzvie of Brisbane are also insightful. Australia does suffer from small sizes in the world of globalisation. Government restrictions on international entry and competition are unhelpful to a more competitive market. Those restrictions need to be removed.
There is also an issue of unfair discrimination due to the lack of competition that also needs to be addressed. This unfair discrimination is the practice by a super marketer to charge the same item with different prices at different locations with no differences in cost factors.
Competition watchdog should be able to address this issue. Of course, this requires the competition watchdog to work efficiently and smartly as possible. It needs to be more diligent itself.
By addressing this issue appropriately, the adverse effects of past planning legacy on competition can be minimised. It also lessens the needs for every super market location to have available space for competitors.
The federal government thus has several tasks to do to increase the competition of super markets in Australia. They should not be too difficult.
2009-05-29
Regulate pricing behaviour better than regulate market structure
Comments on Stephen Bartholomeusz “Rethinking competition”, 29/05/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Rethinking-competition-pd20090529-SH46V?OpenDocument&src=sph
Most anti-trust laws have been based on the paradigm of “structure-conduct-performance”. As a result, anti-trust laws or regulatory authorities have a major focus on regulating the market/industry structure, such as the number of firms, market shares, etc. This makes the jobs of the regulatory authorities easier by limiting market shares, or concentration of an industry, such as the number of firms.
That approach may be good for markets or products where there are limited economies of scale. However, it can have significant adverse effects on the efficiency of costs and supply in cases where economies of scale are prevalent. Although the purpose of anti-trust is to protect the interests of consumers, the end results may hurt them, if anti-trust measures present costs of production from falling associated with economies of scale. But such negative effects are generally unobservable, so consumers don’t know if they have been hurt.
That is a paradox of anti-trust based on market structure. A better framework in protecting consumers seems for authorities to focus on firm behaviour/conduct, as opposed to market structure. Competition authorities or competition laws should have the power to collect costs and pricing information, if the market share of any individual firms exceeds certain percentage. Bu studying costs and pricing, the authorities can rule whether a firm has behaved competitively or not and take competition measures accordingly.
Both the world economy and individual national economies have changed so much with technologies, trade and economic integration and globalisation. It is time to rethink competition and how to manage competition, not for just the fears of concentration and for observable of the poor outcomes due to uncompetitive firm behaviours, but also for the economies of scale and their effects on costs and prices and ultimately the interest of consumers.
Authorities need to be prepared to do hard jobs. The days of easy doings should be gone.
Most anti-trust laws have been based on the paradigm of “structure-conduct-performance”. As a result, anti-trust laws or regulatory authorities have a major focus on regulating the market/industry structure, such as the number of firms, market shares, etc. This makes the jobs of the regulatory authorities easier by limiting market shares, or concentration of an industry, such as the number of firms.
That approach may be good for markets or products where there are limited economies of scale. However, it can have significant adverse effects on the efficiency of costs and supply in cases where economies of scale are prevalent. Although the purpose of anti-trust is to protect the interests of consumers, the end results may hurt them, if anti-trust measures present costs of production from falling associated with economies of scale. But such negative effects are generally unobservable, so consumers don’t know if they have been hurt.
That is a paradox of anti-trust based on market structure. A better framework in protecting consumers seems for authorities to focus on firm behaviour/conduct, as opposed to market structure. Competition authorities or competition laws should have the power to collect costs and pricing information, if the market share of any individual firms exceeds certain percentage. Bu studying costs and pricing, the authorities can rule whether a firm has behaved competitively or not and take competition measures accordingly.
Both the world economy and individual national economies have changed so much with technologies, trade and economic integration and globalisation. It is time to rethink competition and how to manage competition, not for just the fears of concentration and for observable of the poor outcomes due to uncompetitive firm behaviours, but also for the economies of scale and their effects on costs and prices and ultimately the interest of consumers.
Authorities need to be prepared to do hard jobs. The days of easy doings should be gone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
