Upload
diego-alonso-collantes
View
8
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Uso estratégico de la Regulación
Citation preview
Strategic Use of Regulation
Page 1 of 12
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015
PrintPublicationDate: Sep2010 Subject: BusinessandManagement,BusinessPolicyandStrategy,PublicandNonprofitManagement
OnlinePublicationDate: Sep2010
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199560219.003.0005
StrategicUseofRegulation CentoVeljanovskiTheOxfordHandbookofRegulationEditedbyRobertBaldwin,MartinCave,andMartinLodge
OxfordHandbooksOnline
AbstractandKeywords
Thefocusofthisarticleisthestrategicuseofregulationbyindustryandregulators,andtherulesandproceduresthathavebeenandcanbeputinplacetoreducewastefulattemptstogamethesystem.Regulationexiststogetindustry,organisations,andindividualstomodifytheirbehaviourtogaincompliancewiththelaw,andultimatelytoachievedesiredoutcomes.Yetitoperatesinaworldwherethelawisimperfect,enforcementandcompliancecostly,resourceslimited,andtheregulatorhasdiscretion.Regulationhastwootherfeaturesitgenerateswinnersandlosers;anditscreationandenforcementaretheoutcomeofpoliticalandlegalprocesses.Investinginrulechangecanbeaslucrativeasmaximisingprofitswithintherules.Itoftenpaystheindustrytoinvestintryingtoinfluenceandrespondtolegislatorsandregulatorstogainfavourableregulation,ortominimisetheimpactofunfavourableregulation.Keywords:regulation,industry,organisations,legalprocesses,legislators
5.1IntroductionThefocusofthischapteristhestrategicuseofregulationbyindustryandregulators,andtherulesandproceduresthathavebeenandcanbeputinplacetoreducewastefulattemptstogamethesystem.WhererelevantIhavedrawnonexamplesfromtheutilityindustriesandcompetitionlaw.
Regulationexiststogetindustry,organisations,andindividualstomodifytheirbehaviourtogaincompliancewiththelaw,andultimatelytoachievedesiredoutcomes.Yetitoperatesinaworldwherethelawisimperfect,enforcementandcompliancecostly,resourceslimited,andtheregulatorhasdiscretion.Regulationhastwootherfeaturesitgenerateswinnersandlosers;anditscreationandenforcementaretheoutcomeofpoliticalandlegalprocesses.Thisissimplytosaythatthestakessurroundingregulatorychangecanbehighandthestakeholderscanofteninfluencetheoutcome.Thelatterfactorpointstotheobviousthoughoftenneglectedfactthatfirmsandregulatorsnotonlyoperatewithintherulesofthegamebutalsocanchangethoserules.Investinginrulechangecanbeaslucrativeasmaximisingprofitswithintherules.Itoftenpaystheindustrytoinvestintryingtoinfluenceandrespondtolegislatorsandregulatorstogainfavourableregulation,ortominimisetheimpactofunfavourableregulation.
(p.88) 5.2StrategiesandtheRegulationGameThetermsgameandstrategyarenotdesignedtotrivialiseregulation,ortoimplythatitisfun.Agamerepresentstheinteraction(strategies)betweenitsvariousplayerssuchasfirms,regulator,consumers,andinterestgroups.Gametheoryformalisesthewaythesegamesareplayed,andthegamesareusedtoprovide
Strategic Use of Regulation
Page 2 of 12
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015
simplifieddescriptionsofactualbehaviour(Baird,Gertner,andPicker,1994).Inthischapterwewillnotapplyformalgametheorybutsimplyoutlinesomeoftheconsiderationsaffectingtheregulationgame.
Cartelsprovideagoodillustrationofstrategyandgaming,andhowthesecanbeusedtodesignregulation.Thereceivedtheoryofcartelsisthatgamingamongtheparticipantsisendemic(Veljanovski,2004).Acartelisanagreementtoraiseprices,sharemarkets,andrestrictoutputbetweenfirmsinanindustry.Thispotentiallycomplexandlegallyunenforceableagreementgenerateshigherprofitsforitsmembers.However,anindividualmemberofthecartelcangenerateevenhigherprofitsifitsecretlyincreasesitssalesbyundercuttingthecartelprice(secretsales;hiddendiscountsandrebates;etc.)whileitscoconspiratorschargethecartelprice.Thusanendemicproblemofcartelsischeating,andthisisoftencitedasthebasisfortheclaimthatcartelsareinherentlyunstable.
Thecartelexampleillustratesseveralfeatures,whicharereflectedmoregenerallyintheregulatoryprocess.Thefirstisthatprivategainandcollectivegainoftendiverge.Underthecartelarrangementsallmembersarecollectivelybetteroffbyadheringtotheagreement,butindividuallybetteroffbybreakingtheagreementwhenothersadheretoit.Second,theexampleshowsthatgainsfromtradeareanecessarybutnotsufficientconditionforagreementandcompliance.Inparticular,cartelssufferfromwhateconomistsrefertoasopportunism,definedbyWilliamsonasselfseekingwithguile(Williamson,1985:30).Thatisasituationwhereallmembershaveanincentivetoappeartobeadheringtothecartelarrangementsbut(some)aresecretlyundercuttingtheircoconspirators'prices,i.e.gamingtheagreement.
Ontheothersideofthecoinregulationcanbedesignedtotakeadvantageofthestrategicincentivesandgamingamongthemembersofacartel.Legislatorsandregulatorshaveexploitedthistensionbygivingimmunitytowhistleblowersanddiscountingfinestothosewhocooperateinsecuringasuccessfulprosecutionoffellowcartelists.Thisgeneratesagreaterincentivetocheatonthecartel,thistimetoavoidwhataretodayveryhighfinancialpenalties(Veljanovski,2007a).Themembersofacartelhavetoconsiderthepay-offsfromadheringtothecartelagreement,versuscheatingbyundercuttingthecartelprice(andbeingsubjecttoretaliatoryactionsbyothermembersofthecartel),versusblowingthewhistletoavoidhighfines,criminalprosecutioninsomejurisdictions,andprivatedamageclaimsbyreportingthecarteltotheauthorities.Thesestrategieshavedifferentpay-offs,andchangeovertime.
(p.89) Itshouldbestressedthatthetermsstrategicandgamingarenotintendedtoindicateanabuseoftheregulatoryprocessorlaw.Rather,theyarethelegitimatepursuitofselfinterestinordertomaximisebeneficialoutcomesorminimisepotentialexpectedlosses.Thecartelexampleillustratesthatinsettingswherethereareasmallnumberoffirmswhorecognisetheirinterdependencebothfirmsandregulatorcaninfluencecommercialandregulatoryoutcomesbyactingstrategically.Ofcoursetheremaybeinstanceswheretheactionsofregulatedfirms,andindeedtheregulators,crossthelinetoabusetheprocessandbreakthelaw.
5.3TheEconomicsofRegulationThedominantviewinpoliticsandamongthepublicisthatregulationremediesmarketfailureandredistributeswealth,andthatiteffectivelyachievesthesetwoobjectivesonaverage.Isayonaveragebecausefewarenowsonaveastobelievethatregulatorsandgovernmentsdonotfailandspectacularlysoinsomecases.Thispublicinteresttheoryofregulation,orwhateconomistsrefertoasthemarketfailuresapproach,holdswidecurrency.
Thepublicinteresttheoryimplicitlyassumesthattheactorsintheregulatoryprocesssuppresstheirprivateintereststothoseofthegreaterpublicgood,or(whichislesslikely)thattheirselfinterestisalignedwiththepublicinterest.Italsoassumesthatthoseregulatedandbenefitingarepassiveactorsintheregulatorysystem.Whilethesemayserveasassumptionsforatheoryofwhatisgoodregulationtheydonotreflectreality.Clearlyfromthebeginningofcivilsociety,individualsandorganisationshavesoughttogainandsucceededingainingfavour,fromtheirkings,emperors,chieftains,andgovernments.
Modernregulationisacomplexinteractionbetweenpoliticians,civilservants,industry,interestgroups,regulatorybodies,andoccasionallyconsumers.Toexplainaspectsofthis,economistshavedevelopedtheoriesofregulation,whichstartwiththeassumptionthattheparticipantsintheregulatoryprocessareselfinterested.Firms,managers,andregulatorspursuetheirselfinterestwithintheeconomic,legal,andinstitutionalopportunitiesandconstraintstheyconfront.
Strategic Use of Regulation
Page 3 of 12
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015
GeorgeStiglerwasthefirstcontemporaryeconomisttousethisassumptiontodevelopapositive(i.e.testable)theoryofregulation.Hetookthepositionthatregulationwasmotivatedbyitsabilitytoredistributewealth,panderingtosectionalinterestsfrominception,andnotasanafterthought.Heboldlystatedthat:Theparamountroletraditionallyassignedbyeconomiststogovernmentregulationwastocorrectthefailuresoftheprivatemarket(theunconsideredeffectsofbehaviouronoutsiders),butinfactthepremierroleofmodernregulationistoredistribute(p.90) income(1988:xii).ObviouslymanyothershadnotedthistendencybeforeStigler(includingKarlMarxandAdamSmith),butnot,itseems,postwaracademiceconomists.
Stigler'skeyinsight,refinedbyothers(e.g.Posner,1974;Peltzman,1976and1989;Becker,1983),wasthatregulationwasnotagivenbutsubjecttotheeconomists'lawsofsupplyanddemand.Hesawtheprimaryproducttransactedinthepoliticalmarketplaceaswealthtransfers.Thedemandforlegislationcamefromcohesivecoordinatedgroups,typicallyindustryorspecialinterestgroups,andhencewasskewedcomparedtothemarketplace.Thesupplysideoflegislationwaslesseasytodefinegiventhenatureofthepoliticalandlegislativeprocesses.Thestate,however,hasamonopolyoveronebasicresource:thepowerlegitimatelytocoerce.Thisleadstotheviewthatbecausethelegislativeprocessisskewedtothebenefitofcohesivegroupsthatcanlobbyeffectively,ittendstobecapturedby,ortooverlypanderto,specialinterestgroups.Indeed,thisgaverisetoapessimisticassessmentofthesustainabilityofaliberalandopensocietyaspoliticsandgovernmentbecameoverwhelmedbyspecialinterestgrouppoliticsthatundermineeconomicgrowthandsocialprogress(Olson,1982).Thecapturetheoriesofregulatoryagenciessharedthesesameconcerns.
AgoodillustrationofregulationbeingframedinresponsetodemandandsupplyconsiderationswastheUKprivatisationprogrammeofthe1980s(Veljanovski,1987).TheMinistershadtogainpoliticalsupportforprivatisationfromthemanagements,tradeunions,andtheconsumers/generalpublic.Thisresultedinanumberoftrade-offsespeciallyinthefaceofoppositionbytheexistingmanagementtomoreradicalrestructuringproposalsnobreakupofBritishGasandBritishTelecom,lighthandedregulation,andrestrictionsoncompetition.Thesewerepoliciesindirectresponsetonegotiatingstancestakenbythemanagementofthenationalisedindustrieswhichthreatenedtoopposeanddelayprivatisation.Inordertobuytheirsupport,policieswereadoptedthatwerenotinthelongterminterestsoftheconsumer.
OwenandBrauetigam(1974)inanearlycontributiontotheliteraturefirstreferredtoregulationasaregulatorygame.Theyclaimedthat,[N]oindustryofferedtheopportunitytoberegulatedshoulddeclineitechoingStigler'sview(1974:2).Thiswasandisprobablyanexaggeratedperspective,andperhapspeculiartothecollegiatenatureofUSregulatorycommissionsinthe1960sand1970swherepoliticalappointeesgeneratedmixedandmixedupobjectivessusceptibletolobbyingandpoliticalinfluence.
OwenandBrauetigamstressedthatfirmsneedtotakeregulationseriously.Theirkey,ifsomewhatobvious,pointisthatthestrategicuseofregulatoryprocessisatleastasimportanttoafirmasitsdecisionsoverkeycommercialvariablessuchasprices,output,andinvestment.Thisiscertainlythecasefortheutilitysector,suchasgas,electricity,energy,telecommunications,andrailways,wherethereissectorspecificregulation.MoregenerallythelobbyingofpoliticiansandMinistersbyfirmsaremost(p.91) obviouslyseenduringthelegislativephase.However,italsoexistsaspartoftheregulatoryprocess.Regulationisnotasetofrulessetdownbyparliamentandautomaticallyenforcedbypenalsanctions.Thestatutesoftenonlyprovidethebarescaffolding,leavingittoaspecialistregulatorybodytobuildthestructure.Statutesoftengiveregulatorswidediscretionandpowerstofillinthedetailsbydevelopingrules,codes,andprocedures,andtheymustenforcethese(whichitselfcreateslaw),andconsultovertheapplicationofthelawanditsreform.Thiswidediscretiongiventotheregulatorsgivesfirmsscopetoinfluencethem.
Theprocessofinvestinginregulatoryoutcomeshastwoconsequences.First,fromthefirm'sperspectiveitgeneratesexpectednetbenefits.Isayexpectedsincethereturntotheireffortsisnotcertain.Lobbyingandseekingtopreventburdensomeinterventionsorsecurefavourableonesisatbestanuncertainactivity.Itcanleadtoeithergainsorlosses.
Second,thelobbyingandstrategicactionsoffirmsarecostly.Indeedpublicchoiceeconomistshavefocusedonthetransactionscostsanddistortionsarisingfromfirms'participationintheregulatoryandpoliticalprocess(BuchananandTullock,1962;Tullock,1967and1976).Thistheyhavecalledrentseeking,definedasunproductiveandwastefulprofitseekingbyspecialinterestgroupstosecurefavourablelegislationdesignedto
Strategic Use of Regulation
Page 4 of 12
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015
increasetheirwealth.However,thistypeofactivitycannotallbeclassifiedaswastefulunless,ofcourse,oneassumesthatthedevelopmentofeffectiveregulationisacostlessactivity.
Athirdpointworthmakingisthattheregulationgameisatwowaystreet.Industrycanseektomanipulateandinfluencetheregulator,buttheregulatorcanalsomakestrategicuseoftheformalandinformaltoolsavailabletoit.Thelawcannotbecomprehensive,andregulatorsaregivenfairlywidediscretiontoapplythelaw.Thissometimesleadstoextralegal,andsomewouldargueillegalandultraviresactions.Thismaybeexercisedinordertodealwiththeuncertaintyoverthefactsorwithlawsandregulationswhichareunderinclusiveandareanimperfectfittotheregulatorytasksrealorperceivedthatregulatorsmustpursue(ErlichandPosner,1974).Thisisexploredinmoredetailbelow.
Thereisafinalpointthatrequirescomment.Foraneconomicapproachtoregulationtohavevaluetheevolutionofdifferentregulatorystylesandtheactionsoffirmscannotbetreatedasrandomevents.Theyarisefromthestructureoftheindustry,technologicaldevelopments,andtheregulatoryframework,nottomentionthepersonalitiesofregulatorandseniorindustryexecutives.Ineconomictermsalltheseactorsseektomaximisenetreturnsintermsofthepay-offstheyperceivefromdifferentcoursesofaction.Oftenthesepay-offswillbeintermsofmonetaryreturns,butalsounquantifiablefactors,andbeinfluencedbybargainingpsychologies,e.g.theregulatororindustryisperceivedasweak.
Oneoftenseesnationaldifferencesinregulatoryprocessorwhatthepoliticalscientistshavecalledregulatorystyles(Vogel,1986).InthetelecommunicationssectortheIrishandDutchincumbentnetworkoperators(eircomandKPN(p.92) respectively)tendtobemoreaggressiveinchallengingtheregulatorthanBritishTelecomintheUK,whichhasahistoryofcapitulatingtotheregulator.Onecanattributethistoculturaldifferencesortotheobjectivefactssurroundingtheregulatorysystem.Theoreticalworkonthisisnotwelldeveloped.Butintheareaofsocialregulation(healthandsafetyandenvironmentalregulation)attemptshavebeenmadetomodelwhenanenforcementagencywilladoptapenalorcompliancemodel,underthelatterseekingtogaincompliancewithoutrecoursetotheformallaw.Someofthefactors,whichinfluencethischoice,arethecostsandimpactofdifferentenforcementinstruments,andthebudgetaryconstraintsfacingtheregulator(FennandVeljanovski,1988;Veljanovski,1983a,1983b,1983c).
5.4RegulationasContractAnotherstrandofliterature,whichhasrelevance,comesfromtheeconomicsofcontracts(Veljanovski,2007b).Anumberofcommentatorsandscholarshavesuggestedthatregulationcanoftenbeviewedasaprocessofnegotiationwhererelationships,bargaining,strategicbehaviour,anddiscretionareusedinthefaceofuncertaintyandtransactionscosts.Theregulatoryprocessisseenashavingsimilarfeaturestocommercialnegotiationsandcontractualrelationshipssurroundinglongtermcapitalprojects(Goldberg,1976;Williamson,1985;andLevyandSpiller,1994).Thesecontractualnegotiationsinvolveafewparties,withindividualshavinghighstakes,andongoingrelationshipswhichtheymustadapttochangingcircumstances.Thesmallnumbersinvolved,togetherwiththefactthatthesequenceofperformanceandpaymentsmeanthatthepartiesmayactstrategicallyandinparticular,opportunisticallytogainadvantageoncethecontracthasbeenenteredinto.Further,thesebilateralandmultilateralnegotiationscaneasilybreakdownandrequiremoreformallegalresolutiontobreakanydeadlocks.Asthecartelexampleaboveshowed,gainsfromtradeareanecessarybutnotsufficientbasisforamutuallysatisfactoryagreement.
Somehavegoneasfarastocharacteriseregulationasacontractualbargainbetweenindustry,thelegislature,andregulators.Theideaofsomelegallybindingregulatorybargainis,however,fictitious.Thetermoftenisusedasshorthandtoreflectsupposedunderstandingsandperceptionsbetweengovernmentandindustryastothewayregulationwillbeenforcedandmodified.Forexample,autilitywillcomplainthattheregulatorandpoliticiansarebreakingaregulatorybargainbymakingpricecontrolsmoreonerousthanoriginallyexpected.However,itisoftennomorethanpublicrhetoricoftheregulatorygame.Insomejurisdictionsthisapproachismorecommon,suchastheUnitedStateswherethereisgreaterconstitutionalprotectionofprivateproperty(SidakandSpulber,1997).Sometimes(p.93) itdoesleadtolegalchallengesallegingunlawfulexpropriationofpropertyrights,e.g.Telstra'sunsuccessfulconstitutionalchallengeagainstthecompetitionregulatorforsettingaccesspricestoolow,thusillegallytakingitsproperty.1
Strategic Use of Regulation
Page 5 of 12
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015
Theinteractionsbetweenfirmsandregulatorcantakedifferentforms.Likeallhumaninteractionsfirmscancooperate,andthistendstobethedominantstrategyincivilsociety.Thepartiescanandfrequentlydocooperatewiththeexpectedgiveandtakereflectingman'snaturaltendency,asnotedbyAdamSmith(1776),totruck,barter,andtrade.
Themodelofcooperativeregulationwasandisparticularlyaptforanumberofregulatoryregimesandcountries.ThenegotiatedmodelwasagooddescriptionoftherelationshipbetweenindustryandregulatorsintheUKduringthe1980sand1990swhereregulatorshadconsiderablediscretionandtheincumbentandotheroperatorsregulatedbylicenceconditions,whichcouldonlybemodifiedbymutualagreement,orfailingthis,referraltoanotherregulator(theMonopoliesandMergersCommission). ThesenegotiationstakeplaceinandareconditionedintheshadowofthelawtousethetitleofMnookinandKornhauser's(1979)oftenquotedarticle.
Ontheotherhandadominantoperatorandregulatorcanbeuncooperativeandantagonistic,resultinginfrequentnoncomplianceandlitigation.Aclassicexamplewastheantagonisticrelationshipthatdevelopedbetweenthegasregulator(Ofgas)andBritishGasinthe1980s.ThiswasinpartduetoaflawintheGasAct1988whichdidnotgivetheregulatorpowerstofostercompetition.Nonethelessthegasregulatorsoughttoencouragecompetition,whichBritishGasviewedasexceedingitspowers,andbeganopenlytochallengetheregulator.Ahighlyunproductiverelationshipdevelopedatseniorlevelsbetweenthetwo,whichledtotheeffectiveremovalofboththeregulatorandtheChairmanofBritishGas,andeventuallyledtothebreakupofBritishGas.Thesetypesofhighprofilebattlescontinue.Perhapsthemostnotoriousrecentexamplewastheongoingstand-offbetweentheAustralianCompetitionandConsumerCommission(ACCC)andTelstra,Australia'sincumbentfixedtelephonenetworkoperator,whichsawTelstrarefusetoinvestinanewgenerationnetwork.Underwhatcircumstancesandatwhichstagecooperationturnsintononcomplianceandoppositionwheretheregulatorysystemtipsisachallengeforstudentsofregulation(seeFennandVeljanovski,1988;Baldwin,1985;BaldwinandMcCrudden,1987;Hawkins,1984).
5.5Industry'sStrategicUseofRegulationIndustryhasanumberofoptionsitcanusetoinfluenceregulationandtheregulator.Itcanbargainwiththeregulator,manipulatetheinformationand(p.94) publicity,andasalastresortchallengetheregulatorinthecourtsorspecialistappealtribunals.Allthesehavecostsandbenefits.
5.5.1InformationmanipulationAclassicstrategyisthecontrolofinformationgiventotheregulator.Itisreceivedwisdomthatindustryhasbetterinformationthantheregulator.Thisisoftenreferredtoasinformationasymmetry,andasourceofbothmarketandregulatoryfailure.Theregulatedfirmisassumedtoknowthetruefacts,andtheregulatorisconstantlygropingaroundforthetruth.
Thisfactorcanbeexaggerated.Itmaybethecasethatatthebeginningofanewregulatoryphasethatindustryknowsbetterthantheregulator,butasthesystemmaturesthisfactordiminishes.Clearlytherewillbemanyinstanceswheretherelevantinformationisinthehandsoftheregulatedfirm.Butitwillalsobethecasethatthefirmhasalegalobligationtosupplyinformationtotheregulatorandhasclearreportingrequirements.Further,regulatorsoftenarerequiredtotakeawiderviewoftheissuesthatisofthecompetitiveeffectsandthisrequiresinformationoftennotinthepossessionoftheregulatedfirm.Thuswhenaregulatorlaunchesacompetitiontypeinquirytheregulatedfirmoftenhaslimitedinformationonthemarketshares,costs,andrevenuesofitsrivals.Theregulatoroftengainsthatinformationasitmakesgeneralinquiriesandreceivessubmissions.
Theclaimthatasymmetryofinformationisendemicalsodiscountslearningasanimportantfeatureofregulationinpractice.Intheearlystagesofanewregulatoryapproachtheregulatedfirmsdohaveanadvantageastheyhirethebestexpertsandfilereportsthatperhapsintimidateofficialswithnoorlimitedexperienceoftheindustry,itseconomics,and/orthenewregulatoryframework.However,astimepassesbothpartiesbecomemoresophisticatedandknowledgeable,andabodyofprecedentbuildsup.WhereasintheearlydaysofUKutilityregulationtheregulatedfirm(andthoseseekingtochallengeit)couldsubmitreportswrittenusingbasiceconomicsandfactualassertions,todaythesereportswouldnotbetakenseriously.Thequalityoftheanalysisandthefactual
2
Strategic Use of Regulation
Page 6 of 12
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015
researchnowhasahigherhurdletojumpasbothsideshavebuiltupbetterknowledgeandexperience.Indeedtodaythereisaprofessionalclassofregulatorswhichhasdecadesofexperience,andoftenincludeeconomists,lawyers,andindustryspecialistswhoareacknowledgedexpertsintheirfields.Theabilitytopullthewoolovertheregulator'seyeshasdiminished.
5.5.2MarketstructureSofarindustryhasbeenportrayedasamonolithicorunitaryforce.Butthisisrarelythecaseespeciallywherethereiscompetition,evenifonlyamongafew(p.95) firms.Indeedmarketstructureisacriticalfactorintheuseofstrategyanditssuccess.
Wherethereisamonopolistsubjecttoregulation,therelationshipbetweenregulatorandfirmtakesonthefeaturesofabilateralnegotiation.Thereismorelikelihoodofsuccessfulgamingsincethefirmcaneasilythreatentheregulator,andthereismoreofaninformationalasymmetrythanwouldbethecasewhereanumberoffirmsarevyingfortheregulators'attentionandfavours.
Moreover,oftenthereisasymmetricregulationoffirmsinanindustrydesignedtodealwiththemarketpoweroftheincumbentnetworkoperator.Thatis,onlyonefirmorseveralfirmsaresubjecttoregulation,whileothersareprotectedbyregulationtoensurethatcompetitionisfair.Inmanynetworkindustriestheregulatedincumbentnetworkoperatorfacescompetitionfromfirmsindownstreammarkets.Thesefirmshavedifferentandoftenconflictinginterests.Indeed,regulationappearsazerosumgamei.e.whatonepartygainstheotherloses.Fortheincumbentoperator,aregulatorydecisionwilloftenharmitwhileatthesametimebenefitingitssuppliers,competitors,andcustomers,whowilladoptvariousstrategiestogettheregulatortosupporttheirposition(s).Itssupplierswanthigherprices,itsrivalscheaperaccess,anditscustomerslowerprices.Thisissimplytosaythatindustryisnotmonolithicbutconsistsoffirmswithverydifferentandoftenconflictingpositions.
Mucheconomicregulationisaboutcontrollingmarketpowerandfosteringcompetition.Inmostnetworkindustries(gas,electricity,water,andlesssotelecommunications)thereisoftenoneverticallyintegratedoperator,whichoperatesaubiquitousnetworkortransmissionsystem,whichits(downstream)competitorsmustusetocompete.Theincumbentoperatorisoftenaccusedofactinginahighlystrategicmannertodelay,block,andraiseitsrivals'coststomakeentryandoperationunprofitableforcompetitorsusingitsnetwork.Thiscanariseevenwherethereareclearaccessandinterconnectionobligationsimposedontheincumbentnetwork.Thishassometimesledtoseveregamingofthesystem,andregulatoryresponsestominimisetheforeclosemarketsinthisway.
Thisproblembecomespronouncedwherethelawallowssuchdelayorisunclearanduntested.TheclassicexampleistheseriesofcourtcasesknownasClearCommunicationsvTelecomNewZealand. InNewZealandintheearly1990scompetitionlawandthecourtswereexclusivelyreliedontoregulatethetelecommunicationsindustry.Anentrant(ClearCommunications)soughtaccesstotheincumbent's(TelecomNewZealand)fixedtelephonenetwork.TodothisithadtotakeactionthroughtheNewZealandcourtsandeventuallytheHouseofLords.Thecasesresultedinlimitedaccessanddubiouslegalprecedent.Thestandardinterpretationofthisepisodeisthatinmonopolysituationswherecompetitionreliesonaccesstoanincumbent'snetwork,relianceonexpostcompetitionlawandthecourtsallowsforexcessivegamingofthelegalprocessandineffectiveregulation.Itisforthisreasonthatsectorspecificregulationhasbeenextensivelyusedinotherjurisdictions(andeventuallyinNewZealand).
(p.96) Theexanteregulatoryresponsetothisthreatrealorperceivedistomakeinterconnectionmandatory,withaccesspricessetonfair,reasonable,andnondiscriminatorylevels.Further,wheretheproblemappearsendemicandirremediableusingsuchbehaviouralremedies,regulatorshavepushedfortheseparationofnetwork,wholesale,andretailoperationsasinNewZealandandtheUK.
Suchstrategicactivitiesandgamingofthesystemarenottheexclusiveprovinceoftheregulatednetworkoperator.Itsrivalswillseektogainacommercialadvantageintheregulatorymarketplace,whichtheycannotachieveintherealmarket.Thesefirmsseerealreturnstoinvestingincomplaints,submissions,andlegalactionstopushtheregulatortotakeamoreactiviststancetogivegreaterandcheaperaccesstotheincumbent'snetwork.Theincumbentoperatorswillofteninterpretthisasgamingthesystem,seekingtogainadvantagebyfreeridingonitsinvestments.
3
Strategic Use of Regulation
Page 7 of 12
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015
Itshouldbesaidthateconomistsarenotpassiveparticipantsinthisprocess.Theroleofeconomicsandeconomistsinregulationhasincreasedsubstantially,althoughtheirinfluenceshouldnotbeexaggerated.Sometimes,economistshavebeencooptedbyfirmstoadvance(sometimes)noveltheoriestopersuadetheregulatorthatitshouldintervene.Inthelastseveraldecadesmodelshavebeendevelopedwhichfocusfirms'strategicbehaviourinthepresenceofswitching,information,andtransactionscosts.Thisliteratureinvariablyshowsthatafewlargerfirmscantakeadvantageofthesefrictionstoharmtheircompetitorsandraisetheirrivals'costs(SalopandSheffman,1983)andshouldberegulated.CassandHylton(1999:38)havecalledthisthenipandtuckeconomics,whichfinds:
reasonswhyseeminglyinnocentoratleastordinarybusinessactivityactuallycouldbedesignedtosubvertcompetitorsand,perhaps,competition.Writingsinthisgenredeploysophisticatedargumentstoestablishthatconductthatlooksambiguousorevenbenignshouldbetreatedascontrarytotheantitrustlaw'sconstraints.Thesewritingsfrequentlyrelyonsubtledistinctionstoseparatetheconducttheyfindprocompetitiveandadvocateantitrustremediesthatassertedlydo,ifnotperfectjustice,itsnextofkin.Thesewritingsalsotypicallyrelyoncomplexmathematicalorgametheoreticmodelstodemonstratethatimportantaspectsofordinarymarketcompetitioncanbreakdownundercertainassumptionsthataredifficult,ifnotimpossible,toverifyfromobservabledata.
5.5.3ReviewandaccountabilityAsnotedabovetheuseofstrategyandgamingthesystemisatwowaystreet,involvingfirmsandregulator.Itis,therefore,notsurprisingthatmechanismshavebeenputinplacetogoverntheregulationgamebygivingtheaffectedpartiestherighttoappealaregulator'sdecisioneitheronlegalgrounds,andincreasinglytoreviewitssubstantivemerits(socalledmeritsreview).
Overthelastdecadetheabilityoftheaffectedpartiestochallengearegulator'sdecisionhasincreased.Incommonlawcountriestherehasalwaysbeentheoption(p.97) ofjudicialreviewbutthegroundshavebeenfairlylimited.Theconcernoverregulators'unfettereddiscretionhasledprogressivelytothedevelopmentofspecialistappealbodieswithbothjudicialandfullmeritsreviewpowers.ThisisthecaseundertheECNewRegulatoryFramework forthecommunicationssector,whichrequiresMemberStatestosetupanappealprocessfordecisionsofnationalregulatoryauthorities.
Thecaseforallowingfirmstoappealaregulator'sdecisionsiseasytostateandsupport.Itkeepsregulatorshonestandforcesthemtocomplywithbestpractice,makingdecisionsonfactual(notspeculative)analysis,andinaccordancewiththelaw.ThevalueofmeritsreviewhasbeenobviousinEurope.TheEuropeanCommissionhasbeenrockedbymeritsreviewsundertakenbytheCourtofFirstInstance(CFI)in2004. Thisisaninterestingandappositeexample,asanelitedivisionofaregulatorwasrevealedtoengageinpoorqualitydecisionmaking.TheMergerTaskForce(MTF)oftheEuropeanCommission'scompetitiondirectorate(DGCOMP)pioneeredtheuseofeconomicstodealwithmergerclearance.ButinthreesuccessiveappealstheCFIannulledtheCommission'smergerdecisionsforfailingtosatisfytherequisitestandardofproof.ThejudgesconcludedthattheMTFhadfailedproperlytoanalysethefacts,reliedontheoreticalspeculationratherthanfactualassessments,andinsomecasescompromisedtherightsoftheparties.Morerecentdecisionssimplyconfirmthateventhebestintentionedregulatorscannotbereliedontoactproperly. Thesedecisionsnotonlyremediedtheproblemsidentifiedinthespecificcases,butledtoorganisationalreformswithintheEuropeanCommissiontoaddressweaknessesinitsproceduresandcompetence.
Ontheotherhand,thereareconcernsthatallowingthepartiestoappealaregulator'sdecisionscanbeusedtodelayandfrustratetheregulator,andweakentheeffectivenessofregulation.Theregulatorcanbeembroiledinconstantchallenges,consumingalargeamountofmanagementtimeandlimitedresources,prolongingthetimeperiodsasregulators'copperbottomtheirdecisions,whichruntohundredsofpages.RecentconsultationoverreformoftheregulatoryprovisionsoftheNewZealandCommerceAct1986havebeenbesetbygovernmentconcernsthatallowingfullmeritsreviewoftheCommerceCommission'sdecisionswouldresultintheemasculationoftheregulatoryprocess,andhavefailedtofindfavour(MED,2007).
Thisconcernovergamingthesystemisoverblownandcontrollablebysimplesubstantiveandproceduralsafeguards.Itisoverblownbecausefirmsdonotengageinlitigationlightly.Itiscostly,uncertain,diverts
4
5
6
Strategic Use of Regulation
Page 8 of 12
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015
managementtimeandattractsadverseattention(reputationalrisks).Thisisespeciallysoforinvestorownedandpubliclylistedcompanies.Theprobabilityoflitigationisinverselyrelatedtotheclarityofthelawandthesoundnessoftheregulator'sdecision.Ifthelawisclearandtheregulatorimplementsitcorrectly,litigationhasalowprobabilityofsuccessandgeneratesnoprivate(andsocial)benefits.
(p.98) Ontheotherhand,ifthelawispoorlyframedand/ortheregulatormakespoordecisionsthenmeritsreviewdoesencouragelitigationandthisisappropriate.Insomeareasthelawissobadlyframedandenforcedthatitinvitesgamingbehaviour.CartelprosecutionbytheEuropeanCommissionprovidesagraphicexample.ThemethodoffiningcartelistshasledtoanextraordinarilyhighappealratebecauseoftheECCommission'sinconsistentapplicationofitsownpenaltyguidelines.Thishasledtoapredictablestrategyamongthosefacingfines.Onceacartelhasbeendetected,thepartieshaveeveryincentivetocooperatewiththeCommissiontoobtainadiscountonthefinesthatwillbeimposedundertheECleniencyprocedure.However,oncethefineshavebeenimposedtheyarethenchallengedintheEuropeanCourtofFirstInstanceonsubstantiveandproceduralgroundsbecauseoftheunclearandinconsistentwaytheywerecalculatedbytheEuropeanCommission.Thefactsspeakforthemselvesunderthe1998PenaltyGuidelinesoneormorefirmsinover90%oftheprosecutedcartelsovertheperiod19982006appealeditsfine.Thisisanextraordinarilyhighappealrate,especiallygiventhatthePenaltyGuidelines(1998)weredesignedtointroducegreaterclarityandtransparencyinthewayfineswherecalculated(Veljanovski,2007a).
Theconcernthattherighttoappealwillbeabusedbyregulatedfirmsandtheirprotagonistsisbasedonanoptimisticassumptionthatitinevitablyleadstoafavourableoutcome.Howevermountinganappealisariskyaffair,whichcansometimesresultinharshersanctions.AnexamplehasbeenthecontinuingregulatorytusslesbetweenOftel/OfcomandtheUKmobilenetworkoperators.Oftel/Ofcomconcludedthatthepricepaidforafixed-to-mobilecallwasexcessivebecausethemobileoperatorhasaterminationmonopoly.Asaresultitimposedcontrolstoreducethepriceoffixedtomobilecalls.ThefirstattempttodothisbyOftelwaschallengedbythemobileoperatorswiththeresultthattheMonopoliesandMergersCommission(1999)reducedtheseverityoftheproposedpricecontrols.However,whenthepricecontrolswerenextreviewed,Oftelspecificallysoughttoavoidalegalchallengebyproposingalessstringentcontrolthanitsresearchindicatedwaswarranted.Theoperatorsagainchallengedtheproposalsonprinciple.UnfortunatelytheCompetitionCommission(2002)recommendedaworseoutcomeforthemobileoperatorstoughercontrolsonfixed-to-mobilecalls,andtheextensionofpricecontrolstomobiletomobilecalls.
Proceduralrulescanreducethelikelihoodofmisuseoftheappealsprocess.Therehasbeenalivelydebateoverwhetherornotregulators'decisionsshouldbeimplementedwhiletheappealisbeingheard.Ontheonehand,iftherearesignificantgroundsforanappealthenitmayresultinavoidablecostsiftheregulator'sdecisionsaimplementedandthenreversed.Ontheotherhand,ifanappealcanbeusedtofurtherdelayadecisionthennonmeritoriousappealsmaybecomeattractive.Forexample,thefirstchallengebytheUKmobileoperatorsinthelate1990sdelayedthepricecontrolandthereforewasworthtensofmillionstotheoperators,farexceedingthecostsoftheappeal.Itisnotsuggestedthatthiswas(p.99) theprimarymotivationoftheoperatorsasthereweremajorprinciplesatissueandoverwhichtherewasatthetimedeepdifferencesofopinionbetweentheregulator(Oftel)andthemobilecompanies.Butthefactthattheappealdelayedtheimplementationofalowersetoftariffsmadeitfinanciallyattractivetothemobileoperators.Thissituationislesscommontodayastheregulator'sdecisionisoftenimposedwhiletheappealisbeingheardorsubjecttoretrospectiveclawbackbybackdatingtheregulationiftheappealhasbeenunsuccessful.
5.6Regulators'UseofStrategyRegulatorscanalsoengageinstrategicmanoeuvresandgamingtoachievelegitimateandsometimesillegitimateoutcomes.Thiscanrangefromtheuseofopaquerulesandenforcementprocedures,tomoreovertpressures,whichforcethoseregulatedtomakesignificantandsometimesquestionableconcessions.Thiscanoccurinanumberofways.
Regulatorsoftenusevaguelaws,standards,softlaw,decisionalpractices,andnontransparentenforcementprocedurestocreateuncertaintyandtheimpressionofgreaterregulatorypowersandsanctionsthanexist.This,combinedwiththediscretiongiventheregulators,canoftenbeexploitedtogaincomplianceandagreementfrom
Strategic Use of Regulation
Page 9 of 12
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015
thoseregulated.Theregulatorcanexaggeratetheallegedinfringementbyoverchargingtheregulatedfirm.Thisiswhentheregulatorthreatensamoreextensiveinvestigationandmoreseveresanctionstogetagreementtoamorelimitednumberofspecificregulatorychanges,eventhoughtheformerarenotlikelytobelegallysound.
Forexample,Ofcom'snegotiationwithBritishTelecomtogetagreementovertheoperationalseparationofBT'snetworkwholesaleandretailoperationswasconstantlycouchedintermsofathreatofaCompetitionCommissionreferralifagreementwerenotreached.TheimplicationthatOfcomtriedtocreateisthatareferraltotheCompetitionCommissionwouldmostlikelyresultinthebreakupofBTashadasimilarreferenceofBritishGas(MonopoliesandMergersCommission,1993),andsubsequentreferenceofBritishAirportsAuthorityBAA(CompetitionCommission,2009).However,theChairmanoftheCompetitionCommissionmadeitclearpubliclythattherewasnoautomaticpresumptionthatareferraltotheCompetitionCommissionwouldinevitablyleadtothedismantlingofBT.
Thestrategicuseofregulationbyregulatorsisevidentwheretimelimitsareimportant.Oneareawherethisisthecaseismergerclearance.TheEuropeanmergerclearanceprocedureconsistsofatwophaseprocessPhaseIwheretheproposedmergerisvettedtoseeifitraisescompetitionconcerns,andifthere(p.100) aresuchconcernsaPhaseIIwhereafullcompetitiveassessmentisundertakenoverastandardperiodofthreemonths.APhaseIIinvestigationcanbeexpandedtotakeuptosixorsevenmonthsifthepartiesoffercommitment.ThethreatofaPhaseIIisoftenheldoverthepartiestogainconcessions(socalledundertakings)thattheEuropeanCommissionrequirestoclearthemerger.ThiscanbeusedbytheCommissiontoforcethepartiesintomakingconcessions,whicharenotessentialtoprotectcompetitiongiventhepressureonthepartiestoconcludethesale/acquisition.Obviouslyitishardtojudgewhetherthisisaseriousproblem,butexperiencehasshownthatforsomeperiodsthe(nowdefunct)MergerTaskforcewithintheEuropeanCommissionrevelledinitsabilitytonegotiatewiththepartiestoextractundertakings.ThefactthatsomeoftheMergerTaskforce'shighprofiledecisionstoblockmergerswereannulledwhenchallengedinthecourtsindicatethatmanysettledPhaseIclearancesmayalsohavebeendefective.
Anotherdeviceusedbyregulatorsispublicityandpublicopinion.Theuseofpressreleases,speeches,andinterimfindingstoshameandmakepublicdisagreementscanbeusedtomakethefirmmorecompliant.Suchpublicitycanhaveadversereputationaleffectsforthecompanyunderinvestigation,anddamagerelationshipswithitssuppliersandcustomers.ThishassometimesbeenanovertstrategyoftheUKOfficeofFairTrading(OFT)andotherregulators(suchasOfgas)inthepastwherepressreleasesandbriefingswereusedtoputpressureonfirmsinanongoinginquiry.Insomecasesthishasreachedexcessivelevelsamounting(intheCourt'sview)tosensationalistpublicity,asforexampletheOFTclaimthatMorrisons(asupermarketchain)wasguiltyofpricefixingwheninfactthiswasnotyettheoutcomeoftheOFT'sinvestigation.ThethreatofalibelactionforcedtheOFTtomakeanapologyandpay100,000indamages.
5.7ConclusionRegulationisafactoflifeforindustry.Itispartofdoingbusiness,anditcanhaveamajorimpactonafirm'sprofitabilityandgrowth.Itisobviousthatwherepossibleindustrywillseektoinfluenceregulation,andtoexploitthelatitudethattheregulatoryprocessallowsittogainmorefavourableoutcomes.Likewiseregulatorsliveinaworldwherethelawisoftenbroadbrushandwhichdelegatestothemoftenwidediscretiontoframetherulesanddeterminehowtheyareenforced.Infacttheyareoftengivenpowersanddutiestocreatetherulesofthegamethroughtheirrulemakingpowersandenforcementdecisions.Inthisenvironmenttheuseofstrategicresponsestoregulationandgamingofthesystemwillbeprevalent.
ReferencesBAIRD,D.G.,GERTNER,R.H.,&PICKER,R.C.(1994).GameTheoryandtheLaw,Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
BALDWIN,R.(1985).RegulatingtheAirlines:AdministrativeJusticeandAgencies'Discretion,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
7
Strategic Use of Regulation
Page 10 of 12
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015
&MCCRUDDEN,C.(1987).RegulationandPublicLaw,London:WeidenfeldandNicolson.
BECKER,G.(1983).ATheoryofCompetitionAmongPressureGroupsforPoliticalInfluence,QuarterlyJournalofEconomics,98:371400.
BUCHANAN,J.M.&TULLOCK,G.(1962).TheCalculusofConsent,AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.
CASS,R.A.&HYLTON,K.N.(1999).PreservingCompetition:EconomicAnalysis,LegalStandardsandMicrosoft,GeorgeMasonLawReview,8:369.
COMPETITIONCOMMISSION(2002).Vodafone,O2,OrangeandTMobile:ReportsonReferencesunderSection13oftheTelecommunicationsAct1984ontheChargesMadeby(p.102) Vodafone,O2,OrangeandTMobileforTerminatingCallsfromFixedandMobileNetworks,December2002.
(2009).BAAAirports,London.
EUROPEANCOMMISSIONPENALTYGUIDELINES(1998).ECCommissionGuidelinesontheMethodofSettingFinesImposedPursuanttoArticle15(2)ofRegulationNo17andArticle65(5)oftheESCTreaty,98/C9/03.
ERLICH,I.&POSNER,R.A.(1974).AnEconomicAnalysisofLegalRulemaking,JournalofLegalStudies,3:25786.
FENN,P.&VELJANOVSKI,C.G.(1988).APositiveEconomicTheoryofRegulatoryEnforcement,EconomicJournal,98:10551070(reprinted:A.I.Ogus(ed.),Regulation,EconomicsandtheLaw,Cheltenham:EdwardElgar,2001).
GOLDBERG,V.P.(1976).RegulationandAdministeredContracts,BellJournalofEconomics,7:42648.
HAWKINS,K.(1984).EnvironmentandEnforcement,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
LEVY,B.&SPILLER,P.T.(1994).TheInstitutionalFoundationsofRegulatoryCommitment:AComparativeAnalysisofTelecommunicationsRegulation,JournalofLaw,EconomicsandOrganization,10:20146.
MINISTRYOFECONOMICDEVELOPMENT(MED)(2007).ReviewofRegulatoryControlProvisionsundertheCommerceAct1986:DiscussionDocument,MinistryofEconomicDevelopment,Wellington,NewZealand,April2007.
MNOOKIN,R.&KORNHAUSER,L.(1979).BargainingintheShadowoftheLaw:TheCaseofDivorce,YaleLawJournal,88:95097.
MONOPOLIESANDMERGERSCOMMISSION(1993).BritishGas,London:HMSO.
(1999).CellnetandVodafone:ReportsonReferencesunderSection13oftheTelecommunicationsAct1984ontheChargesmadebyCellnetandVodafoneforTerminatingCallsfromFixedlineNetworks,21January1999.
OLSON,M.M.(1982).TheRiseandDeclineofNations,NewHaven,CT:YaleUniversityPress.
OWEN,B.M.&BRAEUTIGAM,R.(1974).TheRegulationGame:StrategicUseoftheAdministrativeProcess,Cambridge,MA:Ballinger.
PEACOCK,A.T.(ed.)(1984).TheRegulationGameHowBritishandWestGermanCompaniesBargainwithGovernment,Oxford:BasilBlackwell.
PELTZMAN,S.(1976).TowardaMoreGeneralTheoryofRegulation,JournalofLawandEconomics,19:21140.
(1989).TheEconomicTheoryofRegulationAfteraDecadeOfDeregulation,BrookingsPapersOnEconomicActivity:Microeconomics,159.
POSNER,R.A.(1974).TheoriesofEconomicRegulation,BellJournalofEconomicsandManagementScience,5:2250.
SALOP,S.C.&SHEFFMAN,D.(1983).RaisingRivals'Costs,AmericanEconomicReview,73:26771.
SIDAK,J.G.&SPULBER,D.F.(1997).DeregulatoryTakingsandtheRegulatoryContract,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Strategic Use of Regulation
Page 11 of 12
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015
SMITH,A.(1776).WealthofNations,Oxford:ClarendonPress(edition1972).
STIGLER,G.J.(ed.)(1988).ChicagoStudiesinPoliticalEconomy,Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
TULLOCK,G.(1967)TheWelfareCostofTariffs,Monopoly,andTheft,WesternEconomicsJournal,5:22432.
(p.103)(1976).TheVoteMotive,London:InstituteofEconomicAffairs.
VELJANOVSKI,C.(1983a).TheEconomicsofRegulatoryEnforcement,inK.Hawkins&J.M.Thomas(eds.),EnforcingRegulation,Boston:KluwerNijhoff.
(1983b).TheMarketforRegulatoryEnforcement,EconomicJournal,93:1228.
(1983c).RegulatoryEnforcement:ACaseStudyoftheBritishFactoryInspectorate,LawandPolicyQuarterly,5:7596.
(1987).SellingtheState:PrivatisationinBritain,London:WeidenfeldandNicolson.
(1991).TheRegulationGame,inC.Veljanovski(ed.),RegulatorsandtheMarket:AnAssessmentoftheGrowthofRegulationintheUK,London:InstituteofEconomicAffairs.
(2004).ECMergerPolicyafterGE/HoneywellandAirtours,AntitrustBulletin,49:15393.Availableat:SSRN:ssrn.com/abstract=958205.
(2007a).CartelFinesinEurope:Law,PracticeandDeterrence,WorldCompetition,30:6586.Availableat:SSRN:ssrn.com/abstract=920786.
(2007b).EconomicPrinciplesofLaw,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
VOGEL,D.(1986).NationalStylesofRegulation,Ithaca,NewYork:CornellUniversityPress.
WILLIAMSON,O.E.(1985).TheEconomicInstitutionsofCapitalism,NewYork:FreePress.
Notes:(1.)TelstraCorporationLimitedvACCCFCA2008.TelstraaskedtheHighCourttoconsiderwhetheritsconstitutionalrightsunderSection51(XXI)oftheAustralianConstitution,thatthefederalgovernmentcanonlycompulsorilyacquirepropertyonjustterms,werebeingbreachedby11ofitsrivals,theCommonwealthgovernment,andtheACCC(whichsetspricesforcompulsorythirdpartyaccesstoTelstra'snetwork).TelstraarguedthattheaccesspricessetbytheACCCforitsrivalswerebelowcostandthustheywouldacquireaccesstoTelstra'spropertynotonjustterms.
(2.)Peacock(1984),Veljanovski(1987and1991).
(3.)ClearCommunicationsLtdv.TelecomCorp.ofNewZealandLtd(1992)5TCLR166;ClearCommunicationsLtdv.TelecomCorp.ofNewZealandLtd(PC)(1995)1NZLR285.
(4.)Directive2002/21/EConacommonregulatoryframeworkforelectroniccommunicationsnetworksandservices,24April2002.
(5.)CaseT342/99AirtoursvCommission(2002);CaseNo.IV.M1524Airtours/FirstChoice(1999);CaseT310/01SchneiderElectricvCommission(2002);CaseT5/02TetraLavalBVvCommission(2002).SeegenerallyVeljanovski(2004).
(6.)CaseT464/04Impalav.Commission,13July2006.
(7.)InFebruary2008theOFTwasroundlycriticisedinHighCourtforpublicrelationsexercisesseekingtoattractsensationalistpublicityasMorrisonwasgrantedleavetojudicialappeal.MorrisonwithdrewitsactionaftertheOFTapologisedandagreedtopayMorrisons100,000insettlementofitslibelactionagainsttheOFTarisingfromanOFTpressreleasesuggestingMorrisonswasguiltyofcompetitionlawbreaches(beforethatwasproven)inthe
Strategic Use of Regulation
Page 12 of 12
PRINTED FROM OXFORD HANDBOOKS ONLINE (www.oxfordhandbooks.com). (c) Oxford University Press, 2014. All RightsReserved. Under the terms of the l icence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a title in OxfordHandbooks Online for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy).Subscriber: Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru (PUCP); date: 01 May 2015
ongoinginvestigationintomilkpricing(WmMorrisonSupermarketsplc:anapology,OFTPressRelease54/08,23April2008).LaterthesameyearSeanWilliams,anewlyappointedexecutivedirectoroftheOFTwhomadethestatement,resigned.
CentoVeljanovskiCentoVeljanovskiisManagingPartneratCaseAssociates(London)andAssociateResearchFellowattheInstituteofAdvancedLegalStudiesattheUniversityofLondon.