Skip Main Navigation
Page Content

Save This Event

Event Saved

Interview with Tembinkosi Bonakele: Antitrust in Developing Countries

Concurrences Review + NYU School of Law

Friday, October 27, 2017 from 8:30 AM to 6:30 PM (EDT)

Interview with Tembinkosi Bonakele: Antitrust in...

Ticket Information

Ticket Type Sales End Price Fee Quantity
Standard Registration*   more info Oct 27, 2017 $600.00 $0.00
Concurrences Registration*   more info Oct 27, 2017 $550.00 $0.00
NYSBA Registration*   more info Oct 27, 2017 $570.00 $0.00
Academics/Enforcers/Students Registration*   more info Oct 27, 2017 Free $0.00

Share Interview with Tembinkosi Bonakele: Antitrust in Developing Countries

Event Details

 

ANTITRUST IN DEVELOPING COUNTRIES:

COMPETITION POLICY IN A POLITICIZED WORLD



 

Interview with Tembinkosi Bonakele

 


 

Tembinkosi Bonakele (Commissioner, South African Competition Commission) has been interviewed by Ioannis Lianos (Professor, University College London) in anticipation of the 4th edition of the joint conference co-organized by Concurrences Review and New York University School of Law, to be held in New York City on October 27, 2017. They will participate in the panel "Impact of the New Nationalism on Competition and Economic Development in Developing Countries."

 

To see the full program and register, please click here

 

Competition authorities are increasingly interested in assessing the effects of mergers or other conduct on innovation. How is this concern over the promotion of innovation affecting the substance of competition law enforcement, and in particular the extraterritorial application of competition law, as innovation is often taking place in the context of global value chains? How should one resolve conflicts over competing visions over the impact of competition on innovation, as it seems to be, for instance, the case between the EU and the US, and possibly BRICS countries?

 

One of the aims of competition law is to encourage innovation. Firms and individuals are incentivised to innovate due to the protection conferred on their innovations by intellectual property laws (IP). Therefore, at least theoretically, competition and IP laws ought to be complementary. However, the conflicts between competition law and innovation/IP laws are increasingly coming into sharp focus within the context of global value chains. One such example is the recent global mega-mergers in the seeds and agro-chemicals sectors. These mergers illustrate how multinationals can leverage their significant innovation and research resources by extending their IP protections through ‘ever-greening’ of patents, reciprocal IP cross licensing arrangements with close rivals, joint ventures and collaborative research and development. This level of collaboration suggests that the seed/agro-processing markets are likely more concentrated than is currently understood. From a policy perspective, competition authorities in both the EU and US seem supportive of this level of concentration based on the theory that such concentration increases innovation, notwithstanding their (unintended) global unilateral effects to which developing countries are especially vulnerable, given the centrality of agriculture for the sustenance of communities in their economies. The vulnerability of developing countries is further exacerbated by the fact that they are trying to regulate multinationals which have access to resources that dwarf the GDPs of many developing countries, and are able to lobby hard politically, against any interventions aimed at their activities.

Against this backdrop, the way forward for BRICS and other developing countries is to continue efforts to establish their own research platforms to enable the true impacts of the trade-off between innovation and competition law to be better understood from a developing country perspective. Furthermore, there is scope for greater global co-ordination amongst competition law agencies to ensure that global transactions are investigated and remedied in a co-ordinated manner. 


Broader public policy concerns, than consumer welfare narrowly defined, are increasingly taken into account by various competition law systems around the world, in both developing and developed countries when assessing mergers and, in some instances, anticompetitive conduct. There is also increasing demand for a broader canvas of principles and values in order to assess business conduct, as this is demonstrated by the development of the concepts of "social" and "green" capitalism. Should competition law authorities explore more systematically this trend and eventually move to a public interest standard in assessing anticompetitive conduct, at least in some economic sectors (for instance involving primary goods, such as food, shelter, or with considerable environmental impact etc.)? What would be the implications for the global governance of antitrust?

 

Many countries already apply tests beyond the typical competition law tests in merger assessments, but they do not declare those tests in an open and transparent way. In contrast, South Africa’s merger regulation explicitly includes a public interest test and guidelines have been issued setting out how the test will be applied during merger assessment.

Should public interest cover some old and emerging social issues such as green issues or the environmental impact on food security, shelter and so on? I think there is scope for these to be part of an assessment of merger transactions, but their location need not necessarily be with a competition agency and they can be properly assessed through a different regulatory agency in a transparent manner. Countries should be allowed to structure their agencies the way they deem fit.

Within South Africa’s context, in order to address historical inequalities and economic and political imbalances, competition legislation specifically provides for both competition law and public interest standards in the merger assessment process. It bears specific mention that the courts have recently confirmed that both the competition law and public interest tests are of equal prominence in any merger determination process. In a developmental context, economic exclusion exacerbates inequality, poverty and unemployment and competition policy in conjunction with industrial policy (introduced through public interest) can break down barriers to entry and unleash innovation and new entry, which are pivotal to the unleashing of economic growth and development.

Although public interest considerations in merger assessment would appear, largely, the preserve of developing countries, developed countries and most notably, the European Union, seem to be re-considering their stance towards public interest considerations in merger assessment. Moreover, the impact of globalisation appears to be giving rise to a new wave of ‘new nationalism’ in developed countries (and the United States is no exception). This has ushered in more inward looking perspectives to international trade and ironically, may give rise to the use of public interest considerations in ‘tit for tat’ exchanges in transactions taking place within an increasingly geopolitical context. Thus, the implications for the global governance of anti-trust may be convergence.  


In recent years the competition authorities of BRICS countries and other large emergent economies have been increasingly active in competition law enforcement, adjudicating high profile cases of global importance. The experience gained may be a source of inspiration for competition authorities in other emergent and developing countries, and could also be an important source of learning and wisdom for the competition authorities in developed countries. Do you consider that BRICS and other larger emergent competition authorities should strive to ensure global convergence with the EU and/or US models of competition law, as this is put forward by some, or should they opt for different models, experimentation being an important source of collective learning for both developing and developed countries? Should convergence, or experimentation, be the main/driving principle for the global governance of competition law? 

 

In the developed world, competition law is applied within a context in which it is presumed that markets are naturally competitive, self-correcting and don’t require policy interventions to address failures. However, that presumption cannot hold true in a developing country context where markets are undeveloped, highly concentrated, non-inclusive and unemployment and inequality are high. In this ‘developmental context’ competition law is applied within a context in which it is presumed that firms with market power exploit it. Therefore, in developmental context, competition law more than just efficiency, but human and socio-economic development as well.

Rather than seeking convergence with developed country perspectives on competition law, developing countries need to play a more prominent role in understanding how competition law policy can be used to address poverty, inequality and unemployment. This will require developing countries through the auspices of representative regional platforms such as BRICS, to enhance co-operation, share experiences and develop legal and competition law expertise from a developmental perspective.

Thus, it is important to appreciate that approaches to competition law in the developed and developing worlds are diverse and that divergence should be tolerated and informed by context. This does not take away the need for global co-operation and sharing best practices. There are also instances where harmonisation may be desirable, like in regions with or striving for common markets.  


 

 

Have questions about Interview with Tembinkosi Bonakele: Antitrust in Developing Countries? Contact Concurrences Review + NYU School of Law

Save This Event

Event Saved

When & Where


New York University School of Law
Greenberg Lounge
40 Washington Square South
New York

Friday, October 27, 2017 from 8:30 AM to 6:30 PM (EDT)


  Add to my calendar

Organizer

Concurrences Review + NYU School of Law

The increasing number of competition regimes worldwide gives rise to new challenges for the antitrust enforcement on the global stage. This conference delves into the issues raised by the implementation and enforcement of antitrust rules in developing countries and offers the opportunity to discuss the hottest topics with some of the most prominent antitrust academics, enforcers, and practitioners.

All registrations include continental breakfast, coffee, lunch and a cocktail mixer. Payment must be received prior to the conference. There will be no refund after September 27, 2017. Cancellations must be received in writing; cancellation received in writing up to 30 days before the conference will receive a refund less 15%. Substitutes delegates are welcome at any time. Photos will be taken at the event; attendees agree for the organizer to use these photos unless otherwise required in writing.

CLE Information: This program has been approved by the Continuing Legal Education of the New York State for 9 CLE credits. NYU School of Law has a financial hardship policy. All credits will be both transitional and non-transitional. This event is appropriate for both newly admitted and experienced attorneys.For more information, please contact conferences-us@concurrences.com.

Panel sponsors are Baker McKenzie, Charles River Associates, Compass Lexecon, ELIG Attorneys-at-Law, HFW, King & Wood Mallesons, and White & Case. 

  Contact the Organizer
Interview with Tembinkosi Bonakele: Antitrust in Developing Countries
Things to do in New York Conference Business

Please log in or sign up

In order to purchase these tickets in installments, you'll need an Eventbrite account. Log in or sign up for a free account to continue.