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
Judge Appoints Law Firms to Lead Consumer Antitrust Litigation Against Apple
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Epic Health Systems Seeks Dismissal of Antitrust Suit Filed by Particle Health
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Qualcomm Secures Partial Victory in Licensing Dispute with Arm, Jury Splits on Key Issues
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Google Proposes Revised Revenue-Sharing Limits Amid Antitrust Battle
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Japan’s Antitrust Authority Expected to Sanction Google Over Monopoly Practices
Dec 22, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand