Advertisement

The Incorporation of the Public Interest in the Assessment of Prohibited Conduct: A Juggling Act?

  • Ziyanda ButheleziEmail author
  • Yongama Njisane
Chapter
  • 653 Downloads
Part of the International Law and Economics book series (ILEC)

Abstract

The South African Competition Act no 89 of 1998, like many of its counterparts in the BRICS countries and other developing economies, incorporates traditional competition law principles with public interest considerations. It is common cause that the South African competition authorities are required to take into account public interest factors during the assessment of proposed mergers and acquisitions as well as exemption applications. However, it is not clear to what extent (if at all) the competition authorities are obliged to take into account public interest factors during the assessment of prohibited conduct. This chapter seeks to determine whether the South African competition authorities ought to consider public interest factors in the evaluation of prohibited conduct. The chapter briefly evaluates the meaning of the public interest and its interplay with competition law/policy and reviews the political and economic context which resulted in the incorporation of the public interest in the South African Act. The chapter also briefly looks at the incorporation of the public interest in the competition legislation of a number of other jurisdictions like the UK, USA and our African counterparts. The chapter also briefly discusses examples of South African abuse of dominance cases where the public interest was (directly and indirectly) taken into account. The chapter concludes by setting out lessons learnt.

Keywords

Public interest Prohibited conduct BRICS Dominance Economic efficiency State support Price discrimination Excessive pricing 

References

  1. Bork, R. (1966). Legislative intent and the policy of the Sherman Act. Journal of Law and Economics, 9, 15–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boudreaux, D. J., & DiLorenzo, T. J. (1993). The protectionist roots of antitrust. The Review of Austrian Economics, 6(2), 81–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. DiLorenzo, T. J. (1985). The origins of antitrust: An interest-group perspective. International Review of Law and Economics, 5(6), 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dolmans, M. (2005, June). The concept of abuse under article 82 EC profit sacrifice or proportionality test? US law and EU law compared. In 2nd annual conference of the College of Europe, Bruges, Global Competition Law Centre, Brussels (p. 16–17).Google Scholar
  5. Faith, R. L., Leavens, D. L., & Tollison, R. D. (1982). Antitrust pork barrel. Journal of Law and Economics, 25(2), 329–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hartzenberg, T. Competition policy review. TRALAC Trade Law Centre: 12.Google Scholar
  7. Hay, D. (1997). Country studies: The United Kingdom. In E. M. Graham, J. D. Richardson, et al. (Eds.), Global competition policy (pp. 199–234). Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.Google Scholar
  8. Katzmann, R. A. (1980). Regulatory bureaucracy: The Federal Trade Commission and Antitrust Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Khemani, S. (2002). Application of competition law: Exemptions and exceptions. Geneva: UNCTAD.Google Scholar
  10. Leslie, C. R. (2012). Antitrust law as public interest law. UC Irvine Law Review, 2, 885–909.Google Scholar
  11. Lewis, D. (2012). Thieves at the dinner table: Enforcing the Competition Act: A Personal Account. Johannesburg: Jacarana Media.Google Scholar
  12. OECD. (2003). The objectives of competition law and policy, Global Forum on Competition. Google Scholar
  13. Oxenham, J. (2012). Balancing public interest merger considerations before sub-Saharan African competition jurisdictions with the quest for multi-jurisdictional merger control certainty. US–China Law Review, 9, 211.Google Scholar
  14. Posner, R. A. (1969). The Federal Trade Commission. University of Chicago Law Review, 37, 47–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Posner, R. A. (2001). Antitrust law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  16. Qaqaya, H., & Lipimile, G. (Eds.). (2008). The effects of anti-competitive business practices on developing countries and their development prospects. Geneva: UNCTAD.Google Scholar
  17. Scott, A. (2009). The evolution of competition law and policy in the United Kingdom (London School of Economics Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 9/2009).Google Scholar
  18. Smith, P., & Swan, A. (2014). Africa: Public interest factors in competition decisions. http://globalcompetitionreview.com/reviews/59/sections/204/chapters/2304/africa-public-interest-factors-competition-decisions/. Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
  19. Staples, J., & Masamba, M. (2012, September 6–7). Fourteen years later: An assessment of the realisation of the objectives of the Competition Act 89 of 1998. Paper presented at the 6th annual Competition Commission, Competition Tribunal and Mandela Institute conference on competition law, economics and policy in South Africa, Johannesburg, South Africa.Google Scholar
  20. UNCTAD. (2011, July 19–21). The importance of coherence between competition policies and government policies. Paper presented at the 11th session of the Intergovernmental Group of Experts on Competition Law and Policy, Geneva, Switzerland.Google Scholar
  21. Wang, P., Zhang, Y., & Evrard, S. (2012). Chinese enforcement against abuses of dominance ramps up. Competition Policy International Antitrust Column, 1(3).Google Scholar
  22. Young, A., & Shugart, W. (2010). The consequences of the US antitrust activities: A macroeconomic perspective. Public Choice, 142(3), 409–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MultiChoice AfricaPretoriaSouth Africa
  2. 2.Competition Commission South AfricaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations