Sunday, May 11, 2025
No Result
View All Result
  • Media
Support Us
Macdonald-Laurier Institute
  • Home
  • About
    • Who We Are
    • Who Makes MLI Work
    • Tenth Anniversary
  • Experts
    • Experts Directory
    • In Memoriam
  • Issues
    • Domestic Policy
      • Economic Policy
      • Justice
      • Rights and Freedoms
      • Assisted Suicide (MAID)
      • Health Care
      • COVID-19
      • Gender Identity
      • Canada’s Political Tradition
      • AI, Technology and Innovation
      • Media and Telecoms
      • Housing
      • Immigration
      • Agriculture and Agri-Food
      • Competition Policy
    • Energy Policy
      • Energy
      • Environment
    • Foreign Policy
      • Israel-Hamas War
      • Ukraine
      • Taiwan
      • China
      • Europe and Russia
      • Indo-Pacific
      • Middle East and North Africa
      • North America
      • Foreign Interference
      • National Defence
      • National Security
      • Foreign Affairs
    • Indigenous Affairs
  • Projects
    • CNAPS (Center for North American Prosperity and Security)
    • The Promised Land
    • Voices that Inspire: The Macdonald-Laurier Vancouver Speaker Series
    • Dragon at the Door
    • Justice Report Card
    • The Great Energy Crisis
    • DisInfoWatch.org
    • Double Trouble
    • Digital Policy & Connectivity
    • Managing Indigenous Prosperity
    • Defending The Marketplace of Ideas
    • Reforming the University
    • Past Projects
      • Canada and the Indo-Pacific Initiative
      • The Transatlantic Program
      • COVID Misery Index
        • Provincial COVID Misery Index
        • Beyond Lockdown
        • COVID and after: A mandate for recovery
      • Speak for Ourselves
      • The Eavesdropping Dragon: Huawei
      • Talkin’ in the Free World with Mariam Memarsadeghi
      • An Intellectual Property Strategy for Canada
      • Munk Senior Fellows
      • A Mandate for Canada
      • Confederation Series
      • Fiscal Reform
      • The Canadian Century project
      • Fixing Canadian health care
      • Internal trade
      • From a mandate for change
      • Size of government in Canada
      • Straight Talk
      • Labour Market Report
      • Leading Economic Indicator
      • Centre for Advancing Canada’s Interests Abroad
      • Indigenous Prosperity at a Crossroads
        • Aboriginal Canada and Natural Resources
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Past Events
      • MLI Dinners
      • Great Canadian Debates
  • Latest News
  • Inside Policy
  • Libraries
    • Columns
    • Commentary
    • Papers
    • Books
    • Video
  • Home
  • About
    • Who We Are
    • Who Makes MLI Work
    • Tenth Anniversary
  • Experts
    • Experts Directory
    • In Memoriam
  • Issues
    • Domestic Policy
      • Economic Policy
      • Justice
      • Rights and Freedoms
      • Assisted Suicide (MAID)
      • Health Care
      • COVID-19
      • Gender Identity
      • Canada’s Political Tradition
      • AI, Technology and Innovation
      • Media and Telecoms
      • Housing
      • Immigration
      • Agriculture and Agri-Food
      • Competition Policy
    • Energy Policy
      • Energy
      • Environment
    • Foreign Policy
      • Israel-Hamas War
      • Ukraine
      • Taiwan
      • China
      • Europe and Russia
      • Indo-Pacific
      • Middle East and North Africa
      • North America
      • Foreign Interference
      • National Defence
      • National Security
      • Foreign Affairs
    • Indigenous Affairs
  • Projects
    • CNAPS (Center for North American Prosperity and Security)
    • The Promised Land
    • Voices that Inspire: The Macdonald-Laurier Vancouver Speaker Series
    • Dragon at the Door
    • Justice Report Card
    • The Great Energy Crisis
    • DisInfoWatch.org
    • Double Trouble
    • Digital Policy & Connectivity
    • Managing Indigenous Prosperity
    • Defending The Marketplace of Ideas
    • Reforming the University
    • Past Projects
      • Canada and the Indo-Pacific Initiative
      • The Transatlantic Program
      • COVID Misery Index
        • Provincial COVID Misery Index
        • Beyond Lockdown
        • COVID and after: A mandate for recovery
      • Speak for Ourselves
      • The Eavesdropping Dragon: Huawei
      • Talkin’ in the Free World with Mariam Memarsadeghi
      • An Intellectual Property Strategy for Canada
      • Munk Senior Fellows
      • A Mandate for Canada
      • Confederation Series
      • Fiscal Reform
      • The Canadian Century project
      • Fixing Canadian health care
      • Internal trade
      • From a mandate for change
      • Size of government in Canada
      • Straight Talk
      • Labour Market Report
      • Leading Economic Indicator
      • Centre for Advancing Canada’s Interests Abroad
      • Indigenous Prosperity at a Crossroads
        • Aboriginal Canada and Natural Resources
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Past Events
      • MLI Dinners
      • Great Canadian Debates
  • Latest News
  • Inside Policy
  • Libraries
    • Columns
    • Commentary
    • Papers
    • Books
    • Video
No Result
View All Result
Macdonald-Laurier Institute

Why Canada needs a more modest Competition Bureau: Vincent Geloso for Inside Policy

We should resist the 'hipster antitrust' fad in competition policy.

July 17, 2023
in Domestic Policy, Competition policy, Latest News, Columns, Economic Policy
Reading Time: 4 mins read
A A
Why Canada needs a more modest Competition Bureau: Vincent Geloso for Inside Policy

 

By Vincent Geloso, July 17, 2023

There is a new fad in the domain of competition policy that is dubbed “hipster antitrust” by those who partake in it. The core aim of that group goes beyond merely acting as a regulatory watchdog. It seeks to have government regulatory bodies get more actively involved in guiding competition to the point of proactively shaping the structure of markets.

While it is American in origins, the fad has crossed the border into Canada. In the fall of 2022, the federal government announced consultations to revamp the Competition Act and issued statements that showed affinity with the hipster antitrust logic. The federal Competition Bureau appears only too eager to join in.

However, the history of Canada’s competition policy provides powerful reasons to resist the fad. Indeed, not only are there many flawed assumptions in hipster antitrust thinking, but there are also important historical facts that are conveniently omitted.

To see how, we should return to the origins of Canada’s competition policy: the Combines Inquiry of 1888 by the House of Commons. Instigated by Nathaniel Clarke Wallace, a Conservative MP, the inquiry gave birth to the Anti-Combines Act of 1889. Adopted a full year before the Sherman Antitrust Act in the United States, the Anti-Combines Act was the first of its kind in the western world.

Wallace picked a number of industries he believed were colluding or were being monopolized. These included oatmeal-milling, barbed wire, sugar refining, biscuit confectioners, coal oil wholesaling, barley dealing, biscuit confectioners and egg processing. Wallace did not include the cotton manufacturing industry which was the most frequently accused colluder of the late 19th century – something that other parliamentarians reproached to Wallace.

If anti-competitive behavior is understood as prices of a certain product rising faster than the prices of other goods, while output is being restricted, then we should expect that the industries targeted by Wallace would exhibit rising prices and falling output. Using data from old newspapers, the House of Commons’ committee and trade journals, I was able to recreate price and output data for most of the accused industries. None of them showed what we should have expected.

Prices in all these industries were falling faster than the general price level. For example, the much-reviled sugar trade saw inflation-adjusted prices fall by between 1.9 and 3.1 percent per year during the 1880s. This was while consumption per person increased 4.3 percent on average each year.

For the coal industry, the proportions are even starker. Inflation-adjusted prices fell 3.8 percent per year even though per-capita consumption increased 7.2 percent annually. All of the increases in consumption were faster than the increase in income per capita. Similar trends were observed for all of the other industries.

This is hardly strong evidence on which to justify legislation that regulates competition. If anything, it showed that the markets were already highly competitive.  So why regulate them?

This happened because there was a fatal flaw in the assumption that Wallace shared with the hipster antitrust crowd: that the number of firms in an industry (or the size of the largest firms) is a reliable indicator of competitiveness. Indeed, concentration could arise because the larger firms are the most efficient in the sense that they have the lowest costs of production. As such, mergers and consolidation might even be desirable from the standpoint of consumer welfare if it can further reduce production costs and, in turn, retail prices.

The only issue for competitiveness in that case is contestability. Can other firms enter a market and challenge an incumbent who attempts to use the fact that there are few players left to raise prices? The fear of entry by potential challengers keeps the incumbent firms on their toes. They have to keep innovating, improve their services and cut prices in order to deter challengers from entering. As long as entry is possible, the number of firms on a market says little to nothing about consumer welfare.

And this is why the firms that Wallace targeted were behaving competitively. The report he produced is filled with observations that attempts at collusion broke down because new players had entered an industry, that parties to collusive agreements often entered into them in order to bust the cartel and make a profit, or that collusion was simply impossible because entry was too easy. Contestability was easy, possible and effective at forcing big firms to act competitively.

But even more telling is who latched on to Wallace’s efforts to restrict the practices of big firms. Consumers were only trivially considered in the debates over the Act. Smaller, less efficient firms who were competing against larger and more efficient firms constituted the bulk of the evidence that favoured passing the new law.

One particularly interesting example was an Ottawa coal merchant who argued against the monopoly of the largest coal distribution firm. In his testimony, he quoted the prices at which he sold coal in the city. However, newspaper adverts at the time show that his competitor’s prices were 10 to 15 percent lower than his. Many businessmen in other trades made similar claims against their competitors, arguing that it was impossible for them to earn “a living profit”. This echoes the findings of American economic historian Werner Troesken, who showed that inefficient firms were key backers of the Sherman Act, in the belief that it would hinder the larger and more efficient firms. In other words, the origins of Canada’s competition law (just as elsewhere) were decidedly anti-competitive.

This historical overview offers dramatically different implications for competition policy. First, it tells us that good intentions can be co-opted by opportunistic industry players in ways that could hurt consumers. Second, it tells us that we should strike the idea of proactively shaping markets. Rather, the proper course of action consists in identifying barriers to entry by firms who seek to compete against incumbents.

This all implies a far more modest mission for the Competition Bureau. In fact, it should even involve having the Competition Bureau point out how other government policies – burdensome regulations, tariffs on imported goods, licensing requirements etc. – may be creating hurdles to competition. Anything beyond that involve accepting the flawed logic of the hipster antitrust fad.

Vincent Geloso is an Assistant professor of economics at George Mason University.

Tags: economic policyCompetition Policy
Previous Post

The Road to Vilnius – Canada at the NATO Summit: Jonathan Berkshire Miller and Balkan Devlen

Next Post

No, you won’t tame inflation with more government spending: Philip Cross in the Financial Post

Related Posts

The US should be worried about Canada’s foreign policy: Casey Babb in The Hill
United States

How Did Trump Impact the Canadian Election? Brian Lee Crowley on American Thought Leaders: Tonight at 9PM ET

May 10, 2025
Canada must launch review of paediatric gender clinic practices: Mia Hughes in the National Post
Gender Identity

Canada must launch review of paediatric gender clinic practices: Mia Hughes in the National Post

May 9, 2025
Growing success with post-secondary education in Indigenous communities: Ken Coates & Sheila North for Inside Policy Talks
Inside Policy

Growing success with post-secondary education in Indigenous communities: Ken Coates & Sheila North for Inside Policy Talks

May 9, 2025
Next Post
The inflation tax is back. Americans have been hit first but soon we’ll be feeling it too: Jack Mintz in the Financial Post

No, you won’t tame inflation with more government spending: Philip Cross in the Financial Post

Newsletter Signup

  Thank you for Signing Up
  Please correct the marked field(s) below.
Email Address  *
1,true,6,Contact Email,2
First Name *
1,true,1,First Name,2
Last Name *
1,true,1,Last Name,2
*
*Required Fields

Follow us on

Macdonald-Laurier Institute

323 Chapel Street, Suite #300
Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 7Z2 Canada

613.482.8327

info@macdonaldlaurier.ca
MLI directory

Support Us

Support the Macdonald-Laurier Institute to help ensure that Canada is one of the best governed countries in the world. Click below to learn more or become a sponsor.

Support Us

  • Inside Policy Magazine
  • Annual Reports
  • Jobs
  • Privacy Policy

© 2023 Macdonald-Laurier Institute. All Rights reserved.

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • Who We Are
    • Who Makes MLI Work
    • Tenth Anniversary
  • Experts
    • Experts Directory
    • In Memoriam
  • Issues
    • Domestic Policy
      • Economic Policy
      • Justice
      • Rights and Freedoms
      • Assisted Suicide (MAID)
      • Health Care
      • COVID-19
      • Gender Identity
      • Canada’s Political Tradition
      • AI, Technology and Innovation
      • Media and Telecoms
      • Housing
      • Immigration
      • Agriculture and Agri-Food
      • Competition Policy
    • Energy Policy
      • Energy
      • Environment
    • Foreign Policy
      • Israel-Hamas War
      • Ukraine
      • Taiwan
      • China
      • Europe and Russia
      • Indo-Pacific
      • Middle East and North Africa
      • North America
      • Foreign Interference
      • National Defence
      • National Security
      • Foreign Affairs
    • Indigenous Affairs
  • Projects
    • CNAPS (Center for North American Prosperity and Security)
    • The Promised Land
    • Voices that Inspire: The Macdonald-Laurier Vancouver Speaker Series
    • Dragon at the Door
    • Justice Report Card
    • The Great Energy Crisis
    • DisInfoWatch.org
    • Double Trouble
    • Digital Policy & Connectivity
    • Managing Indigenous Prosperity
    • Defending The Marketplace of Ideas
    • Reforming the University
    • Past Projects
      • Canada and the Indo-Pacific Initiative
      • The Transatlantic Program
      • COVID Misery Index
      • Speak for Ourselves
      • The Eavesdropping Dragon: Huawei
      • Talkin’ in the Free World with Mariam Memarsadeghi
      • An Intellectual Property Strategy for Canada
      • Munk Senior Fellows
      • A Mandate for Canada
      • Confederation Series
      • Fiscal Reform
      • The Canadian Century project
      • Fixing Canadian health care
      • Internal trade
      • From a mandate for change
      • Size of government in Canada
      • Straight Talk
      • Labour Market Report
      • Leading Economic Indicator
      • Centre for Advancing Canada’s Interests Abroad
      • Indigenous Prosperity at a Crossroads
  • Events
    • Upcoming Events
    • Past Events
      • MLI Dinners
      • Great Canadian Debates
  • Latest News
  • Inside Policy
  • Libraries
    • Columns
    • Commentary
    • Papers
    • Books
    • Video

© 2023 Macdonald-Laurier Institute. All Rights reserved.

Lightbox image placeholder

Previous Slide

Next Slide

Share

Facebook ShareTwitter ShareLinkedin SharePinterest ShareEmail Share

TwitterTwitter
Hide Tweet (admin)

Add this ID to the plugin's Hide Specific Tweets setting: