In Belgium, a year and half ago, a governmental urgent decree was necessary to allow hair dressers to be open on possibly their most profitable day, i.e. 31 December (which happened to be a Sunday).
In Italy, cleverer hair dresser regulation (and tradition) has chosen Monday as day off. However there may be something of a "cultural revolution" going on, as the Italian press called it. The Italian Competition Authority has stated (sorry, Italian only) that legislation limiting shop opening hours is restraining competition by reducing the possibilities of shop owners to diversify their marketing strategies.
The statement came as a reaction to the Rome city regulation liberalising opening hours during holidays, but only on 1 November and 8 December, thus excluding Easter Monday (and Ferragosto, for that matter). The Competition Authority has now called for complete liberalisation.
While someone may be already dreaming of American-style 24/7 shopping (very unlikely, I would venture) and fierce competition in services for consumers, it must be said that a number of other obstacles remain, such as, in particular, very high labour cost for over-time work.
Yet, maybe this kind of liberalisation will contribute to a shift from the "imported" practice of spending Sundays in the new big shopping malls, back to the good old Italian habit of strolling along shopping streets.
Showing posts with label competition. Show all posts
Showing posts with label competition. Show all posts
Sunday, 6 April 2008
Friday, 11 January 2008
News from the US
A couple of interesting articles in the New York Times.
After years of an (arguably ideological) do-nothing approach, something is moving in US antitrust enforcement, albeit only at State level. The New York State attorney general is running an investigation in the Intel case. He is reported stating:
“Protecting fair and open competition in the microprocessor market is critical to New York, the United States and the world.”
Let's wait and see where this will lead.
At the same time, Paul Krugman is praising Europe and its approach to competition:
"What’s behind Europe’s comeback? It’s a complicated story, probably involving a combination of deregulation (which has expanded job opportunities) and smart regulation. One of the keys to Europe’s broadband success is that unlike U.S. regulators, many European governments have promoted competition, preventing phone and cable companies from monopolizing broadband access."
After years of an (arguably ideological) do-nothing approach, something is moving in US antitrust enforcement, albeit only at State level. The New York State attorney general is running an investigation in the Intel case. He is reported stating:
“Protecting fair and open competition in the microprocessor market is critical to New York, the United States and the world.”
Let's wait and see where this will lead.
At the same time, Paul Krugman is praising Europe and its approach to competition:
"What’s behind Europe’s comeback? It’s a complicated story, probably involving a combination of deregulation (which has expanded job opportunities) and smart regulation. One of the keys to Europe’s broadband success is that unlike U.S. regulators, many European governments have promoted competition, preventing phone and cable companies from monopolizing broadband access."
Thursday, 20 December 2007
End of the year
At the end, the idea of blogging from the network conference venue in Bonn did not work. Anyway, the meeting was very interesting, well attended and with a lot of debate.
Lawyers and economists did discuss together competition and regulatory issues and, after the unavoidable skirmishes and an invitation to economists to "take responsibility for decisions", the dialogue was fruitful for all.
The topics discussed varied a lot, from mergers between not-for-profit firms (to be treated more leniently by regulators?) to private enforcement of competition law (impossible to find an agreement) to the long lost soul of article 82 (found in the Archives of the 1950s negotiations around the text of the Treaty of Rome, by a researcher from the University of East Anglia).
Of course, our work on Net Neutrality was presented too.
It is not possible to report here on all papers presented there. Maybe in future posts, the authors will like to give some details.
*************************
In the meantime, another TILEC event has taken place, i.e. the second roundtable of the "Economic Impact Group" of the CoPECL network. The aim of the group is the economic analysis of the forthcoming "European Contract Law", currently in the making. The meeting was held in Barcelona and scholars from a number of Universities in Europe were present to discuss whether the rules chosen by comparative lawyers to constitute "European" contract law are sound according to economic analysis.
A website with more info will see the light very soon.
*************************
To all: Happy Christmas and a great 2008!
Lawyers and economists did discuss together competition and regulatory issues and, after the unavoidable skirmishes and an invitation to economists to "take responsibility for decisions", the dialogue was fruitful for all.
The topics discussed varied a lot, from mergers between not-for-profit firms (to be treated more leniently by regulators?) to private enforcement of competition law (impossible to find an agreement) to the long lost soul of article 82 (found in the Archives of the 1950s negotiations around the text of the Treaty of Rome, by a researcher from the University of East Anglia).
Of course, our work on Net Neutrality was presented too.
It is not possible to report here on all papers presented there. Maybe in future posts, the authors will like to give some details.
*************************
In the meantime, another TILEC event has taken place, i.e. the second roundtable of the "Economic Impact Group" of the CoPECL network. The aim of the group is the economic analysis of the forthcoming "European Contract Law", currently in the making. The meeting was held in Barcelona and scholars from a number of Universities in Europe were present to discuss whether the rules chosen by comparative lawyers to constitute "European" contract law are sound according to economic analysis.
A website with more info will see the light very soon.
*************************
To all: Happy Christmas and a great 2008!
Monday, 29 October 2007
Competition and competitors
At the time the merger GE/Honeywell was blocked by the Commission, a slogan started to circulate: we Americans protect competition, you Europeans protect competitors.
A few years later, the European Commission finds that Microsoft infringed article 82, the CFI upholds the decision and some people try to recycle that slogan once again.
But something in the air has changed.
Immediately after the judgment, not less than the Economist ("Brussels rules OK") depicted European regulators as the ones playing a role in the global economy, while Uncle Sam stays at the window.
Now, discussing the Intel issue, also the NYT has contrasted the dismissive behaviour of the FTC towards big companies with the actions of European, Japanese and Korean authorities.
Is it not time for a new slogan?
A few years later, the European Commission finds that Microsoft infringed article 82, the CFI upholds the decision and some people try to recycle that slogan once again.
But something in the air has changed.
Immediately after the judgment, not less than the Economist ("Brussels rules OK") depicted European regulators as the ones playing a role in the global economy, while Uncle Sam stays at the window.
Now, discussing the Intel issue, also the NYT has contrasted the dismissive behaviour of the FTC towards big companies with the actions of European, Japanese and Korean authorities.
Is it not time for a new slogan?
Thursday, 1 March 2007
A UN style veto in Internet Governance?
After a temporary pacification due to the first meeting of the Internet Governance Forum last November, the debate is heating up again on a slippery issue in Internet Governance: "public policy" limits to the creation of new Top-level domain names or TLDs (to supplement existing .com, .info etc.). The latest policy proposal lists a few "selection criteria", among which that: "Strings should not be contrary to public policy (as set out in advice from the Governmental Advisory Committee)". The position of such Advisory Committee is that to address public policy concerns, any of its members (i.e. any government) would have a virtual veto power over TLD applications. Civil society groups have already mobilised against this.
I have two quick comments.
The first is that, until now, only very few TLDs have been created (except those representing countries) and they have not been particularly succesful with customers, who continue to register their websites under .com and/or their national TLD. I am thus wondering whether an additional restriction is likely to have any significant impact on this situation in practice. Moreover, a controversial TLD such as .xxx has already been vetoed by governments without any provision on public policy being in place. Yet, I agree that codifying a principle by virtue of which any government would be able to impose a world-wide veto (albeit only on TLD strings) is a rather scary perspective.
My second thought has to do with my old fixation for introducing more competition in the Domain Name System (DNS). More competition is beneficial for consumers and innovation, but it would help also in the case at hand. With more competing private sector operators and ICANN restricted to a technical role, it would become more difficult to impose such world-wide bans. Of course, any State would remain capable of blocking at its borders anything it does not like, but at least it will not be able to impose it on the whole of the Internet.
I have two quick comments.
The first is that, until now, only very few TLDs have been created (except those representing countries) and they have not been particularly succesful with customers, who continue to register their websites under .com and/or their national TLD. I am thus wondering whether an additional restriction is likely to have any significant impact on this situation in practice. Moreover, a controversial TLD such as .xxx has already been vetoed by governments without any provision on public policy being in place. Yet, I agree that codifying a principle by virtue of which any government would be able to impose a world-wide veto (albeit only on TLD strings) is a rather scary perspective.
My second thought has to do with my old fixation for introducing more competition in the Domain Name System (DNS). More competition is beneficial for consumers and innovation, but it would help also in the case at hand. With more competing private sector operators and ICANN restricted to a technical role, it would become more difficult to impose such world-wide bans. Of course, any State would remain capable of blocking at its borders anything it does not like, but at least it will not be able to impose it on the whole of the Internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
