Aspects of Brazilian Competition Policy

Este Trabalho Discute a Evolução da Defesa da Concorrência no Brasil a Partir de uma Perspectiva Histórica e Comparada. para Tanto, Primeiramente são Apresentadas as Transformações Estruturais da Economia Brasileira Assim como as Circunstâncias Internacionais que Fizeram com que a Defesa da Concorrência se Tornasse Relevante, o que Permite Fazer um Contraste com a Evolução de Outros Regimes de Concorrência. em Segundo Lugar, são Apresentados os Desafios e as Peculiaridades da Implementação da Defesa da Concorrência em uma Economia em Desenvolvimento e como Tais Desafios Foram Tratados no Caso Brasileiro. a Principal Conclusão é que as Melhores Práticas dos Países do Ocde não Podem ser Automaticamente Importadas sem a Devida Atenção Às Peculiaridades de uma Economia em Desenvolvimento.

"Lost in Translation"? Towards a Theory of Economic Transplants

The rise of economics as one of the main (some will advance the most important) “source” of competition law discourse is well documented. This study focuses on a facet of the integration of economic analysis in competition law: "economic transplants". The term “economic transplants” refers to specific economic concepts that were incorporated into the legal discourse by an act of “translation”. They represent the ultimate degree of interaction between the legal and the economic systems. Using a paradigmatic approach the study examines their specific characteristics and what distinguishes them from other forms of integration of economic analysis in competition law. It critically assesses their role and their impact on the legal and the economic discourses. It is submitted that the “paradigm” of translation (and translation theory) is the most adequate explanatory framework for taking into account the dual nature of economic transplants and it can also serve, more broadly, to conceptualize the interaction of law with other social sciences

The Emergent Logic of Health Law

The American health care system is on a glide path toward ruin. Health spending has become the fiscal equivalent of global warming, and the number of uninsured Americans is approaching fifty million. Can law help to divert our country from this path? There are reasons for deep skepticism. Law governs the provision and financing of medical care in fragmented and incoherent fashion. Commentators from diverse perspectives bemoan this chaos, casting it as an obstacle to change. I contend in this Article that pessimism about health law’s prospects is unjustified, but that a new understanding of health law’s disarray is urgently needed to guide reform. My core proposition is that the law of health care provision is best understood as an emergent system. Its contradictions and dysfunctions cannot be repaired by some master design. No one actor has a grand overview—or the power to impose a unifying vision. Countless market players, public planners, and legal and regulatory decisionmakers interact in oft-chaotic ways, clashing with, reinforcing, and adjusting to each other. Out of these interactions, a larger scheme emerges—one that incorporates the health sphere’s competing interests and values. Change in this system, for worse and for better, arises from the interplay between its myriad actors. By quitting the quest for a single, master design, we can better focus our efforts on possibilities for legal and policy change. We can and should continuously survey the landscape of stakeholders and expectations with an eye toward potential launching points for evolutionary processes—processes that leverage current institutions and incentives. What we cannot do is plan or predict these evolutionary pathways in precise detail; the complexity of interactions among market and government actors precludes fine-grained foresight of this sort. But we can determine the general direction of needed change, identify seemingly intractable obstacles, and envision ways to diminish or finesse them over time. Dysfunctional legal doctrines, interest group expectations, consumers’ anxieties, and embedded institutional and cultural barriers can all be dealt with in this way, in iterative fashion. This Article sets out a strategy for doing so. To illustrate this strategy, I suggest emergent approaches to the most urgent challenges in health care policy and law—the crises of access, value, and cost

What do we know about competition agencies in emerging and transition countries? Evidence on workload, personnel, priority sectors, and training needs

During 2003, the World Bank Institute sent a needs assessment questionnaire to 48 competition agencies in transition and emerging countries in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America. Responses were classified according to the World Bank's analytical regional grouping and the evidence allows a cross-regional comparison of competition agencies'workload, personnel, priority sectors, and training needs. The view of competition authorities as a homogenous group across countries and regions can be discarded. The analysis of the needs assessment questionnaire shows that there are significant heterogeneities among competition agencies'mandates, exempted sectors, professional personnel endowment, and capacity needs. An important lesson for the design of training courses is that competition agencies do not need introductory courses. There is a significant demand for training on substance, on how to solve day-to-day technically challenging cases. Responses confirm the growing importance of competition policy issues in infrastructure services (such as market foreclosure and access to essential facilities) and the need to foster coordination between sector regulators and competition agencies.Labor Policies,Economic Theory&Research,Decentralization,ICT Policy and Strategies,Environmental Economics&Policies,ICT Policy and Strategies,Economic Theory&Research,Environmental Economics&Policies,Access to Markets,Markets and Market Access

Markets, Democracy, and Ethnicity: Toward a New Paradigm for Law and Development

It is by now a commonplace that we are living in a period of radical global transformation. Particularly in the developing world, this transformation has had two watchwords: markets and democracy. Indeed, the reascendant teleology of free-market democracy has redefined the very concept of underdevelopment-a term that has shed its exclusively Third World trappings and today joins in a single embrace countries from Algeria to Azerbaijan, from Pakistan to Poland. Marketization and democratization each have been the site of massive Western legal intervention in the developing world. Legal work on marketization ranges from structuring international project finance to drafting market-oriented laws to developing legal regimes that facilitate the transition from command to market economies. Work on democratization includes not only writing constitutions but also grappling with formidable issues such as the transplantability of Western social and political institutions and postcommunist state building

The WTO and market-supportive regulation: a way forward on new competition, technological and labor issues

World Trade Organization

Public Choice, Constitutional Political Economy and Law and Economics

The various subdisciplines within the emerging ‘new institutionalism’ in economics all draw special attention to the legal-political constraints within which economic and political agents choose and therefore represent a return of economics to its appropriate legal foundations. By changing the name of his research program to constitutional political economy Buchanan distanced himself from those parts of the public choice literature that remained too close to the traditional welfare economics approach. This chapter draws lessons for law and economics from recent developments in the re-emerging field of constitutional political economy. CPE compares alternative sets of institutional arrangements, in markets and the polity, and their outcomes, using ‘democratic consent’ as an internal standard of comparison. The chapter discusses the methodological foundation of the CPE approach, presents Buchanan’s reconstruction of the Coase theorem along subjectivist-contractarian lines and gives an overview of recent contributions to the literature. JEL classification: B41, D70, H10, K; Keywords: Constitutional Economics, Constitutional Political Economy, Public Choice, James M. Buchanan, Methodological FoundationLaw and Economics, Constitutional Economics

Legal Feasibility of Schengen-like Agreements in European Energy Policy: The Cases of Nuclear Cooperation and Gas Security of Supply

European energy policy is characterized by a complex allocation of authority between the European Union and its Member States which results in an intricate interplay of regulatory competence. Knowing the difficulties European countries face in coordinating and proposing common solutions in the area of energy, there is the urgent need to question the legal foundations underlying the decisionmaking process. Institutional paralysis, low reactivity to events and changes as well as systematic political horse-trading across all questions call for an alternative framework allowing some pioneering Member States to promote ad hoc common policies escaping the formal and procedural requirements of EU law. Our paper assesses the legal feasibility of short-run differentiation by means of partial international agreements inspired by the Schengen regime, namely entirely outside the EU framework. The key challenge from a legal point of view is to assess the substantive compatibility of such agreements in energy with the existing rules of the Union. Short run differentiation in energy cannot indeed be assessed at a high level of generalities. We therefore take two areas where legally-binding coordination at the sub-Union level is often called for: nuclear policy and gas security of supply. The possible substantive content of such cooperation is derived from the economic and political literature before legal feasibility is assessed. Our findings suggest that the scope for such agreements is limited for security of gas supply whereas it could be an improved cooperation device in certain areas of nuclear policy.Schengen

Convergence of competition policy, competition law and public interest in India

The objectives of competition policy and the application of competition law need defining and redefining along with changing structures of the economy and the maturing of the competition authority. Market structures associated with digital technology and globalization are often not in consonance with the prevalent law framed in economic analysis of traditional product markets. Antitrust interventions by the competition authorities are caught in a bind as was the case with the Competition Commission of India and the Competition Act, 2002. The emphasis on monopolistic competition, or on oligopolistic markets, as anti-competitive, which marked the earlier days of implementation of competition laws, is at variance with the prevalent monopolistic structures of platform markets or technology firms and the market for ideas. Competition authorities are grappling with identifying anti-competitive activities of these markets which tip towards monopolistic structures. In the process there has been a churning of possible diverse antitrust abuses and, as competition law grapples to incorporate these new market structures, there is another churn that is slowly emerging as a major concern - that of convergence of competition policy and public interest. This is an area in antitrust literature which is yet to receive sufficient attention. The core of antitrust intervention - that competition benefits consumers - is undisputed and perhaps axiomatic but what is not axiomatic is that monopolistic market structures can also lead to enhancing public welfare. Emergent trends towards monopolistic markets suggest a rethink of competition policy and law and their convergence for public interest. The focus of this article is on the importance of convergence of competition policy, competition law and public interest in new and emergent markets. It raises questions: Is there convergence or divergence between policy and law and public interest? What is public interest? Do consumers represent public interest and, if so, which set of consumers? Are innovation and technological development, which are part of public interest, also in the ambit of competition policy or are they in the realm of competition law? This is another question which has become acute in recent times. In India and the BRICS group, where usage of internet on smart phones is high, the convergence between competition policy, law and public interest suggests antitrust intervention is guided by public interest