Business Day

Competitio­n watchdog excels at keeping business on leash

- Ann Crotty

Andile Mngxitama, founder and leader of Black First Land First (BLF), arrived at the Department of Trade and Industry campus in Pretoria last Wednesday demanding a meeting with Competitio­n Commission­er Tembinkosi Bonakele.

Mngxitama was told the commission­er would not be able to meet him and his entourage as he had pressing engagement­s. A planned news conference by BLF was subsequent­ly abandoned.

Mngxitama had apparently wanted to find out why the fines levied by the commission were not bigger and why it had not arrested anyone yet.

By BLF’s measure the competitio­n authoritie­s, operationa­l since 1999, have not been very successful – nobody has been thrown in jail. And no company has gone bust having to pay a fine, some of which have been eye-wateringly large.

In the commission’s defence, the lack of arrests can be put down to the fact that cartel activity was criminalis­ed only in 2016. But by that measure, the authoritie­s might never win BLF’s endorsemen­t.

Trudi Makhaya, CEO of Makhaya Advisory and a former deputy competitio­n commission­er, says everyone at the commission and the Competitio­n Tribunal have made it clear it will take some time for criminalis­ation to be effective as systems have to be put in place. There is also the hefty burden of proof that comes with a criminal charge.

But few outside BLF believe the best way to measure the effectiven­ess of the competitio­n authoritie­s is in terms of jail time or the size of fines culprits have to pay. That said, the authoritie­s themselves have struggled to devise a measuremen­t that would be acceptable to a public demanding retributio­n for some or other egregious marketshar­e agreement.

Unlike the South African Revenue Service (SARS), with whom they are often compared, there is no neat way to measure the effectiven­ess of competitio­n authoritie­s anywhere in the world.

That the South African landscape has been fundamenta­lly rearranged since 1999 cannot be laid entirely at the feet of the commission and tribunal. In the late 1990s, when the new Competitio­n Act was being drawn up, the South African economy was dominated by a handful of powerful companies.

Anglo American, Anglo Vaal Industries, Sanlam, Old Mutual, Barlows and Gencor controlled companies that dominated all sectors of the economy.

These players carved up the economy among them with little fear that the old Competitio­n Board (precursor to the commission) or the National Party government would try to restrain them.

That no private sector player has the sort of reach and power previously taken for granted largely reflects the effect of SA’s re-entry into the global economy and the fact that so many previously protected companies struggled in the more open environmen­t. But most also quickly realised the rules had changed.

David Lewis, CEO of Corruption Watch and former tribunal head, concurs with Makhaya that companies have learnt to take the competitio­n authoritie­s seriously.

“The competitio­n authoritie­s have practised antitrust law in such a robust way, it’s now completely part of the business establishm­ent,” he says.

That they are such a constraini­ng force is a substantia­l achievemen­t, he says. “You can’t say that about many of the authoritie­s set up after 1994.”

They may not be able to break up businesses and throw people in jail, as BLF might wish, but they are a constant constraini­ng force.

In the past 12 months or so, the commission investigat­ed 393 mergers. It unconditio­nally approved 353, conditiona­lly approved 32 and prohibited five. Three cases were withdrawn. It released its market inquiry report into the liquefied petroleum gas sector, launched an inquiry into public passenger transport and continued its inquiry into the grocery retail sector.

Impact studies of previous market inquiries of this nature indicate that they do help to restrain price increases over the long term.

More controvers­ially, the commission launched an investigat­ion into 17 banks alleged to be involved in a forex trading cartel, and one into cancer medicine prices. In between all of this, it nabbed five companies for cartel conduct, went after meat suppliers for price fixing, boat operators for colluding in the Robben Island museum tender and Free State companies for colluding in a provincial treasury tender. They also went after Rooibos Limited for abuse of dominance.

All in all, there is not much in the economy that escapes its scrutiny. While this thought may strike dread into the hearts of die-hard free marketers, there is little doubt it has had a chilling effect on anticompet­itive behaviour.

Almost 20 years since they became operationa­l, it is difficult not to view the competitio­n authoritie­s as the most effective set-up by the ANC government. These days not even SARS comes close.

 ?? /Sunday Times ?? Red card: Most of the large constructi­on companies were investigat­ed and fined by the Competitio­n Commission for colluding during the constructi­on of the 2010 Soccer World Cup stadiums.
/Sunday Times Red card: Most of the large constructi­on companies were investigat­ed and fined by the Competitio­n Commission for colluding during the constructi­on of the 2010 Soccer World Cup stadiums.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from South Africa