government policy for dealing with monopoly. Antitrust laws aim to stop abuses of
market power by big companies. Sometimes, to prevent corporate mergers and
acquisitions that would
create or strengthen a monopolist. There have been big
differences in antitrust policies both among countries and within the same
country over time. This has reflected different ideas
about what constitutes a monopoly and, where there is one, what sorts of
behaviour are abusive.
In the United States, monopoly policy has
been built on the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. This prohibited
contracts or conspiracies to restrain trade or, in the words of a later act, to
monopolise commerce. In the early 20th century this law was used to reduce the economic power
wielded by so-called "robber barons", such as JP Morgan
and John D. Rockefeller, who dominated much of American industry through huge
trusts that controlled companies' voting shares. Du Pont chemicals, the
railroad companies and Rockefeller's Standard Oil, among others, were broken up. In the 1970s the
Sherman Act was turned (ultimately without success) against IBM, and in 1982 it
secured the break-up of AT&T's nationwide telecoms monopoly.
In the 1980s a more laissez-faire approach was adopted, underpinned by economic
theories from the chicago
school. These theories said that the only justification for
antitrust intervention should be that a lack of competition harmed consumers,
and not that a firm had become, in some ill-defined sense, too big. Some monopolistic activities previously targeted by
antitrust authorities, such as predatory pricing and exclusive marketing
agreements, were much less harmful to consumers than had been
thought in the past. They also criticised the traditional method of identifying a monopoly,
which was based on looking at what percentage of a market was served by the
biggest firm or firms, using a measure known as the herfindahl-hirschman index. Instead, they argued that even a market dominated by one
firm need not be a matter of antitrust concern, provided it was a contestable
market.
In the 1990s American antitrust policy became somewhat
more interventionist. A high-profile lawsuit was launched against Microsoft in
1998. The giant software company was found guilty of anti-competitive
behaviour, which was said to slow the pace of innovation. However, fears that the firm would be broken up, signalling a far more
interventionalist American antitrust policy, proved misplaced. The
firm was not severely punished.
In the UK, antitrust policy was long judged according to what policymakers
decided was in the public interest. At times this approach was
comparatively permissive of mergers and acquisitions; at others it was less so.
However, in
the mid-1980s the UK followed the American lead in basing antitrust policy on
whether changes in competition harmed consumers. Within the rest of
the european union several big countries pursued policies of building up
national champions, allowing chosen firms to enjoy some monopoly power at home
which could be used to make them more effective competitors abroad. However, during the 1990s the European Commission became
increasingly active in antitrust policy, mostly seeking to promote competition
within the EU.
In 2000, the EU controversially blocked a merger between
two American firms, GE and Honeywell; the deal had already been approved by America's
antitrust regulators. The controversy highlighted an important
issue. As globalisation increases, the relevant
market for judging whether market power exists or is being abused will
increasingly cover far more territory than any one single economy.
Indeed, there may be a need to establish a global antitrust watchdog, perhaps
under the auspices of the world trade
organisation.
Keterangan :
1. warna : simple present tense
2. warna : simple
past tense
3. warna : past continous tense
4. warna : past
future continous tense
5. warna : past future tense
6. warna : past perfect tense
7. warna : past present continous tense
8. warna : present
perfect tense
9. warna : present
perfect continous tense
10.
warna : present future continous
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar