Governments should take a leaf out of corporate strategy books and remove barriers to competition instead of trying to mandate it.
Human beings are self interested, and instead of trying to re-engineer humanity, policy makers should recognise this fact and use it for the greater good. As Adam Smith says in one of his most-quoted passages, we do not rely on the baker’s, butcher’s or green grocer’s benevolence to get our bread, meat or fruit; rather, we rely on their self-interest to provide for themselves, and through that self-interest, us.
To followers of Adam Smith, a perfect market has an infinite number of buyers and sellers that can enter and leave the market freely. This ability to enter and exit a market with few or no barriers was critical to Smith’s analysis. Prices reach an equilibrium at which companies do not make ‘super’ profits, and buyers pay no more or less than a product is worth. Imagine buying an apple at the Flemington fruit market: sellers are plentiful, buyers find price discovery relatively easy; the market establishes an equilibrium price at which everyone buys and sells fruit.
This is an efficient, and not necessarily very profitable, market.
Of course in the real world this is not always possible. There are some products and services that people simply can’t live without. And there are some markets where the barriers to entry are, by necessity, high. Take electricity: buyers can choose not to use it, but not very effectively, and there are not many other substitutes besides candles.
On the other side a producer of electricity has a number of barriers that protect it from competition: the cost of building a power station, stringing up distribution wires, and securing raw material supplies. Each of these present massive upfront costs for a new entrant, protecting any incumbent company from competition. Producers of electricity are therefore able to charge a much higher price for their products then they would receive in a perfect market because these barriers to entry prevent potential competitors from entering the market to take advantage of higher than normal profits.
In short, the electricity market has captured consumers and significant barriers to entry – an imperfect market.

If you run a company, and want to make higher profits, find an imperfect market. If you are a consumer, stay away from such imperfect markets. Michael Porter recognised this and put together the five forces theory. This theory is a how-to guide for companies trying to create barriers to entry, thereby allowing them to charge higher prices, and get better returns for their shareholders – all at the consumers’ expense.
In Australia, in industry after industry, we have seen the outcome of Porter’s legacy. Where once twelve retail banks stood, there are five. In retail insurance, less than five years ago, there were twelve insurance companies, now, in effect, there are three. Supermarkets, toll roads, financial services, freighters, ship forwarders, nursing homes, private hospitals etc. In industry after industry where there were once a multitude of competitors there are now five or less.
The losers from this consolidation are consumers. Government’s reaction to this has been to exacerbate the situation by introducing a bewildering number of laws to ‘protect’ consumers. In doing so governments have made it more difficult for new competitors to enter markets and make them less imperfect. It is almost as though Porter’s analysis was only read by management, but no one in government.
The aim of government should be to bring down the barriers to entry, rather than trying to recreate competition through law and regulation.
In the end choice is the ultimate friend of consumers, not government regulation. And no matter how hard they try, governments cannot replicate through regulation the same sort of benefits that a free market can provide. They do however seem perfectly able to inflict a whole number of unintended costs and consequences.
If governments concentrate on removing barriers to entry, ensuring that any market is contestable, then companies and consumers, left to their own devices, will work things out for the best. Let that be Porter’s real legacy.
Comments
The Answer is Competition not Monitoring
The ALP has recently announced that it will monitor prices in supermarkets http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/mixed-verdict-.... I believe that further to this point the ALP’s recently announced policy of policing pricing in major supermarkets. It is a precise example of the problems of such policy postures: it is unlikely to produce any real benefits to consumers, shareholders or suppliers. It is almost certain to add to the ranks of public relation ranks, corporate regulators and lawyers. At a certain point, which we have probably met, additions to these ranks do not add to the welfare of society.
A far better response from Labor would be to remove the unnecessary hurdles to entering the market. Such a policy would create price pressure in the market, innovation and services that consumers want and need. The policy announced yesterday will only perversely add to the barriers of entry, protect incumbents from competitors, and ensure that consumers are denied the best product, at the best price, in the most innovative way.
Competitive Advantage Can't be Reduced to Comparative Advantage
This article is a complete misreading of Porter's analysis.
The legacy Porter intended was to wean governments and economists off the belief that "all we need is competitive markets". His underlying approach to capitalism comes from Schumpeter, not Samuelson--which is the basis of this writer's arguments.
Instead he argued that there were many institutional features that explain why a particular industry--say, performance cars--evolves in a given country--say, Italy--that have nothing to do with conventional economic theory (and its focus on comparative factor costs and resource endowments). Understanding these is the key to growth--or possibly to stopping governments from killing the goose of innovation in the belief they were feeding growth via the gander of competition.
If you want to understand where Porter is coming from, and why it is nonsense to try to reduce his legacy to the argument here, then read Chapter 4 of Schumpeter's Theory of Economic Development. That is a far richer and far more realistic vision of how capitalism actually functions than the fantasies taught in microeconomics courses.
Oh, and by the way, the theory of competitive markets involves outright mathematical fallacies. See:
http://www.debunkingeconomics.com/Papers/Micro/Kee...
Cheers, Steve Keen
Curious thing economics
University economics is a long time ago but my lasting impression is that it was an historical analysis of a markets behavior not a predictive science . Think that more people need to have read Asimov's Foundation series . Applied to economics could we not argue that a wholesale awareness of economics negates any conclusions drawn from it ?
Think I will put Steve's book on the shopping list and as a small business owner go back to manipulating my own little corner of the market , while hoping the government does not break things too badly !