Four different competition theories and derived models for economic policy were discussed in the previous article . What are ideal for "effective competition" is the economic policy based in the Member States of the European Union? That seems to be at first glance a complicated issue - not least against the background of the current disputes about the "how?" of better economic policy coordination within the EU (and the G20), respectively an EU economic government.
But all that complicated, it is not. To make it short, all developed countries to see at least since the late 60s and the oligopoly markets of the major operators are characterized as ideal for effective competition and thus for the realization of growth and employment objectives. This corresponds to the model "workable competition" .
From the 80 years the process of globalization has accelerated. For this reason, were considered competitive and economic policy is no longer national, but global markets as a benchmark. The result was that the thresholds for market power and weakened on the international markets, the emergence of even larger companies has been approved. From the perspective of the paradigm "workable competition" could be the competitive theoretically justified.
It gets added another aspect that encourages the emergence of very large companies and close oligopolies: The natural market development into the mature phase of its own to a strong corporate concentration.
explains why many today oligopolisiert economically important markets, not just marked by a small number of very large and growing companies. The crisis has triggered a new wave of mergers and acquisitions. The company's concentration process has accelerated in many markets. Examples are the energy and raw material sector (electricity and gas, petroleum, Mining (with BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto and Vale)), the food industry (Nestlé, Kraft), the pharmaceutical market, the automotive sector, the processor market (with Intel and AMD) and others.
need this sense, the leaders actually some without much difficulty on a common economic policy line for the EU. There are several reasons why it still is not the case:
- First defines the theory of competition "workable competition" the market Ideal for "effective competition" is very vague . Because it's never to commit to a specific set of criteria and has come corresponding values for these criteria (eg number of suppliers and market shares), today sees the "good working competition," expressed pointedly everyone what he wants or, in other words, there is no limit to the oligopolies are getting narrower, the corporations by mega-mergers and acquisitions increase.
- Second, the economic policy was in practice in the last few years, the de facto separation model repealed. Economic governance today can often identify as a mixture of elements of "workable competition" and "free competition" . On the one hand, is taken from the "effective competition" the ideal of oligopolistic markets, on the other hand, the freedom of markets stressed. This is quite a contradiction, as the guiding principle of "free competition" can be pursued regardless of the market structure.
- Third was not in all industrialized countries, also the Inter ventionspostulat-soaked , so that, depending on national and party political preferences have a different mix of regulatory policy (rules and laws for markets) and interventions (industrial policy, subsidization is) - an outline and the principle of free Allerlei conception.
- Fourth care within the EU persistently low economic growth, some high and rising unemployment or at best stagnating employment (including the price of substantially expanding low (er)-paid work), the strong economic imbalances and the EU's debt crisis on a high degree of uncertainty about the right economic course.
- Fifth, and finally, the politician with the "Too big to fail" problem face that hovers in the face of still fragile financial markets like a Sword of Damocles hanging over them. Very large banks and companies (such as credit rating agencies, auditors) and therefore are also under regulatory aspects seen increasingly critical.
Against this background it is understandable that the policy gives the impression among many citizens of disorientation. It can - at least from the German point of view - be regarded as a historically well documented that economic policy has been successful every time she followed a mission statement that the economic problems properly addressed. That was in the difficult post-war period the case, as Ludwig Erhard economically the concept of "free competition" followed and it was during the crisis of the 60's the case, as Karl Schiller for the economy on the principles "workable competition" oriented.
indicate no doubt that the continuing problems in the EU pointed out that the economic policies it with the focus on a mix of mission statements "workable competition" and "free competition" is not properly addressed.
The "workable competition"
recommends oligopolistic markets, but it is not justice to the fact that markets develop and the market structure changed during the market development. The same applies with regard to the "full-arrived Competition "and it ajar models (eg " full-permanent competition " (W. Eucken)) that define the Polypol as the market ideal. The oligopoly of economic policy to bring to the market ideal of what the case means figuratively Freeze said the development of markets in the stage of maturity to do. oligopolies are typical for mature markets, as well as the dominance of large companies. For mature markets, it is also indicative that the growth is untapped potential as far as possible and increasing cost pressure to cut employment respectively the expansion of low-operation. The current economic policy to be given this situation and thus achieve exactly the opposite of what promises to competition theory "workable competition". It promotes the market development, it prevents them.
The "free competition"
rejects an ideal market decrease, so the other part is also indifferent to the market structure. The market structure is irrelevant with this logic . Alone "freedom" and this is one for market participants to ensure participant is from this theoretical perspective in both considered Polypol as possible in oligopolistic markets. Put simply, the thesis that for the Compliance with the bid non-intervention, that is the limitation on the State planning policy is sufficient. If in doubt creates deregulation problem. This theory, however, is based first on the assumption that competition is a self-running and self-regulating process. This is a non-thesis to be proved. Second, there is no reliable measure of freedom. Freedom is a relational term. In this respect, the implementation of the requirement is already problematic.
addition comes third, that the "free competition" posed by while developing markets. But it does not include the possibility that could get the development to a halt, even if the criterion is met formally freedom, such as market-structural. If therefore related to current economic problems of the EU and the oligopolistic structure, can not address the mission statement of "free competition" in this market structural problem, because it considers the market structure is irrelevant and interventions in the markets and market structures rejects . The Smith's "Invisible Hand" is it already set up - this is the credo.
The "evolutionary competition
is the only theory of competition, the development of markets and takes account of the space in the explanation of competition systematically . "Evolutionary competition" means that competition turns as part of the market and spatial development and not is basically regarded as self-running and self-regulating. When markets become encrusted, in other words, the economic development quality of the competitive process continued very low, then one can counteract not only with changes in circumstances, as in particular the theory of "free competition" would suggest. Rather, this also necessitates government intervention. interventions as a means to improve economic development quality of the competition are in this model therefore excluded in principle. One immediate result-oriented effects on competition, ie in particular with respect to its growth performance (or technical progress / innovation), but according to this theory, as well as in "free competition" not possible.
According to the theory of evolutionary competition, "the economic development quality of the competition takes in the development of markets from successive. This is related to the innovation process. In new markets is becoming more common to such an innovative competition advances that affect the market activity substantially (for example, basic innovations, technological advances). In addition, the products often are based on different technological solutions. Only in the course of further development, set a specific fish "technological Desgin" and a "Best Practice" by. For this reason, changes the form of competition. While crucial for competitiveness in new markets, the functionality and quality aspects in the broadest sense, it comes later in more and more of the cost and price. Innovations contribute even in mature markets, the competitive process. But there are usually Improving innovation, which can cause no significant changes of the market and the market situation more - the economic development quality of the competition is therefore low.
Against this background, it would today be regarded as a key problem that many markets remain too long at the stage of maturity or stagnation - not least because of the economic policy chief competition theory. Cause is from this theoretical perspective, too little economic development quality of the competition or, in other words, the competitive process is not driven by such innovations, the strong momentum Provide for the market development.
For economic policy would be deduced from the results of consequence to not in a market Ideal auzurichten that take large- and competition aims of the price and cost parameters is decided. It would have instead framework for dynamic and innovative competition, and above all create opportunities for small and medium enterprises and banks make . Given in the current situation are also interventions (specific support policies), perhaps inevitable (market structure interventions). has to be viewed
As background to the latter point, for which the over four decades on the model of "workable competition" oriented economic policy in the economies of developed countries: A sort "two- class society "in the economy and financial markets . We have today in developed countries in many industries a few large corporations, on the other hand, many small and medium-sized companies that operate in either large companies or uninteresting niche in local markets, or - very often - are dependent on large companies (eg automotive). What the one-sided focus-tion of policy at the large company segment of the economy and financial markets over a long period in the result means, can demonstrate if you look at the economies of developed countries properties as a giant imagines today stand on two different long and strong legs . The long, strong leg is resting on the national economies. It stands for the segment of large firms and large banks. The shorter, out-mergelte leg stands for the segment of small and medium-sized companies and banks. This is precisely from the perspective of the evolutionary competition " the cause of the instability of the global economic system and therefore also of the financial markets. Based
the EU economic policy orientation on the principles "of evolutionary competition" for all Member States to a reduce dependence of their economy would be the large companies segment run out. The previous EU-growth model, the economic activities this segment in the center - seen well especially at the high value of the industrial policy for the "National champions". Especially in the peripheral states of the Union's economic activity was unfolding and growth achieved by large companies in particular opened up their markets for themselves and also by the low production costs benefited the spot. However, these advances are sometimes highly dependent on the commitment of large firms in these countries, and therefore not sustainable. In this respect would be raised with the modified alignment, especially during the debt crisis-ridden countries, a larger space for the development of innovative entrepreneurship . Arise The use and promotion is a challenge.
is being said is for the EU as a whole, not a viable, if all the governments of national competitiveness - in the spirit of the mission statement "workable competition" and it out-oriented economic policy - as cost competitiveness, and thus define the efficiency point. The model "of evolutionary competition" instead puts one in the development of markets and regions oriented and thus differentiated approach to improving national competitiveness near.
indicate no doubt that the continuing problems in the EU pointed out that the economic policies it with the focus on a mix of mission statements "workable competition" and "free competition" is not properly addressed.
The "workable competition"
recommends oligopolistic markets, but it is not justice to the fact that markets develop and the market structure changed during the market development. The same applies with regard to the "full-arrived Competition "and it ajar models (eg " full-permanent competition " (W. Eucken)) that define the Polypol as the market ideal. The oligopoly of economic policy to bring to the market ideal of what the case means figuratively Freeze said the development of markets in the stage of maturity to do. oligopolies are typical for mature markets, as well as the dominance of large companies. For mature markets, it is also indicative that the growth is untapped potential as far as possible and increasing cost pressure to cut employment respectively the expansion of low-operation. The current economic policy to be given this situation and thus achieve exactly the opposite of what promises to competition theory "workable competition". It promotes the market development, it prevents them.
The "free competition"
rejects an ideal market decrease, so the other part is also indifferent to the market structure. The market structure is irrelevant with this logic . Alone "freedom" and this is one for market participants to ensure participant is from this theoretical perspective in both considered Polypol as possible in oligopolistic markets. Put simply, the thesis that for the Compliance with the bid non-intervention, that is the limitation on the State planning policy is sufficient. If in doubt creates deregulation problem. This theory, however, is based first on the assumption that competition is a self-running and self-regulating process. This is a non-thesis to be proved. Second, there is no reliable measure of freedom. Freedom is a relational term. In this respect, the implementation of the requirement is already problematic.
addition comes third, that the "free competition" posed by while developing markets. But it does not include the possibility that could get the development to a halt, even if the criterion is met formally freedom, such as market-structural. If therefore related to current economic problems of the EU and the oligopolistic structure, can not address the mission statement of "free competition" in this market structural problem, because it considers the market structure is irrelevant and interventions in the markets and market structures rejects . The Smith's "Invisible Hand" is it already set up - this is the credo.
The "evolutionary competition
is the only theory of competition, the development of markets and takes account of the space in the explanation of competition systematically . "Evolutionary competition" means that competition turns as part of the market and spatial development and not is basically regarded as self-running and self-regulating. When markets become encrusted, in other words, the economic development quality of the competitive process continued very low, then one can counteract not only with changes in circumstances, as in particular the theory of "free competition" would suggest. Rather, this also necessitates government intervention. interventions as a means to improve economic development quality of the competition are in this model therefore excluded in principle. One immediate result-oriented effects on competition, ie in particular with respect to its growth performance (or technical progress / innovation), but according to this theory, as well as in "free competition" not possible.
According to the theory of evolutionary competition, "the economic development quality of the competition takes in the development of markets from successive. This is related to the innovation process. In new markets is becoming more common to such an innovative competition advances that affect the market activity substantially (for example, basic innovations, technological advances). In addition, the products often are based on different technological solutions. Only in the course of further development, set a specific fish "technological Desgin" and a "Best Practice" by. For this reason, changes the form of competition. While crucial for competitiveness in new markets, the functionality and quality aspects in the broadest sense, it comes later in more and more of the cost and price. Innovations contribute even in mature markets, the competitive process. But there are usually Improving innovation, which can cause no significant changes of the market and the market situation more - the economic development quality of the competition is therefore low.
Against this background, it would today be regarded as a key problem that many markets remain too long at the stage of maturity or stagnation - not least because of the economic policy chief competition theory. Cause is from this theoretical perspective, too little economic development quality of the competition or, in other words, the competitive process is not driven by such innovations, the strong momentum Provide for the market development.
For economic policy would be deduced from the results of consequence to not in a market Ideal auzurichten that take large- and competition aims of the price and cost parameters is decided. It would have instead framework for dynamic and innovative competition, and above all create opportunities for small and medium enterprises and banks make . Given in the current situation are also interventions (specific support policies), perhaps inevitable (market structure interventions). has to be viewed
As background to the latter point, for which the over four decades on the model of "workable competition" oriented economic policy in the economies of developed countries: A sort "two- class society "in the economy and financial markets . We have today in developed countries in many industries a few large corporations, on the other hand, many small and medium-sized companies that operate in either large companies or uninteresting niche in local markets, or - very often - are dependent on large companies (eg automotive). What the one-sided focus-tion of policy at the large company segment of the economy and financial markets over a long period in the result means, can demonstrate if you look at the economies of developed countries properties as a giant imagines today stand on two different long and strong legs . The long, strong leg is resting on the national economies. It stands for the segment of large firms and large banks. The shorter, out-mergelte leg stands for the segment of small and medium-sized companies and banks. This is precisely from the perspective of the evolutionary competition " the cause of the instability of the global economic system and therefore also of the financial markets. Based
the EU economic policy orientation on the principles "of evolutionary competition" for all Member States to a reduce dependence of their economy would be the large companies segment run out. The previous EU-growth model, the economic activities this segment in the center - seen well especially at the high value of the industrial policy for the "National champions". Especially in the peripheral states of the Union's economic activity was unfolding and growth achieved by large companies in particular opened up their markets for themselves and also by the low production costs benefited the spot. However, these advances are sometimes highly dependent on the commitment of large firms in these countries, and therefore not sustainable. In this respect would be raised with the modified alignment, especially during the debt crisis-ridden countries, a larger space for the development of innovative entrepreneurship . Arise The use and promotion is a challenge.
is being said is for the EU as a whole, not a viable, if all the governments of national competitiveness - in the spirit of the mission statement "workable competition" and it out-oriented economic policy - as cost competitiveness, and thus define the efficiency point. The model "of evolutionary competition" instead puts one in the development of markets and regions oriented and thus differentiated approach to improving national competitiveness near.
0 comments:
Post a Comment