By: Diego Petrecolla, U. de San Andrés
Argentina’s Defense of Competition Law 25156 (DCL) was approved in 1999. It has never been properly enforced, since the National Competition Defense Tribunal which (NCDT) it established was never assembled. The NCDT was conceived as an independent agency, free from political power and isolated from private sector interests. The Kirchner couple, however, never showed the slightest interest in actually forming the NCDT. Instead, competition regulation continued under the Secretariat for Trade, which issued “non-binding” resolutions through its National Commission for Competition Defense (NCCD). This choice made ensured that decisions over competition matters would focus on “political” objectives, rather than “economic” ones. This was all laid bare last year (2014) with the passing of the new “Supply legislation”, which eliminates all of the NCDT’s powers and formally transfers them to the Trade Secretary.
In recent years the Kirchner-Fernandez administration has used the DCL as an instrument for fighting inflation. The law’s original intent, of course, was to protect the wellbeing of consumers and the efficient workings of the market. It is not the right tool to fight inflation. This kind of legislation should be applied to specific sectors, and is therefore best suited to solving microeconomic problems, rather than macroeconomic ones. Inflation, as is well known, is best controlled through proper use of monetary and fiscal policy.
The DCL’s powers include: M&A regulation, sanctioning anti-competitive behavior (particularly cartel formation and abuse of market share cases). The administration has not used either of these effectively: No major sanctions have been imposed for anti-competitive behavior in over three years, and the time taken to review mergers and acquisitions has tripled with the NCCD’s involvement.
The law should be applied primarily on particular sectors. I would suggest starting with Mass-consumption products and goods, particularly foodstuffs, as well as industrial goods. The first group is important because competition issues in this sector directly affect the poorest citizens, who will devote a large part of their income to food. The second group is singled out because of its importance for the competitiveness of the economy as a whole. Both issues are of great importance these days.
It is a shame that the Administration has used this intriguing tool for political ends. It is even more worrying that they should try to wield it to battle inflation- a problem it was never designed for.
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Netflix and Other Streaming Giants Challenge Canadian Rules on News Funding
Jul 7, 2024 by
CPI
Watchdog Urges Colorado Investigation into Potential Rent Price Collusion
Jul 7, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Battle Looms Over Apple’s Lucrative Safari Deal with Google
Jul 7, 2024 by
CPI
Zimbrón Rejoins Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton as Antitrust Partner in London
Jul 7, 2024 by
CPI
NFL Petitions Judge to Overturn $4.7 Billion ‘Sunday Ticket’ Verdict
Jul 7, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Private Equity Roll-Up Schemes
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI
The FTC’s Focus on Private Equity is Warranted
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI
Unraveling the Roll-Up: Private Equity’s Misunderstood Investment Strategy
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Focus on Private Equity Funds and Serial Acquisitions
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI
Private Equity Roll-Ups Amidst Heightened Antitrust Enforcement
Jun 28, 2024 by
CPI