Die folgenden Links führen aus den jeweiligen lokalen Bibliotheken zum Volltext:
Alternativ können Sie versuchen, selbst über Ihren lokalen Bibliothekskatalog auf das gewünschte Dokument zuzugreifen.
Bei Zugriffsproblemen kontaktieren Sie uns gern.
SSRN
SSRN
SSRN
Working paper
Blog: Blog - Adam Smith Institute
More people producing things leads to lower prices for consumers - all else being equal of course. Morrisons has begun matching its prices to Aldi and Lidl as new chief executive Rami Baitiéh mounts a fightback against the German discounters.The supermarket has pledged to match the price offered by Aldi or Lidl on more than 200 products, offering customers whichever price is lowest. The offer will cover everything from corn flakes and mince to canned tomatoes and baby wipes. Prices will be updated twice a week.One of the advantages of advancing age is that we've seen things happen before. Back a quarter century the big worry about British supermarkets was the uncompetitive nature of the industry. Net margins were up at 6% and the like of turnover - vastly high by international standards. Reports were written identifying triangular areas that one or t'other of the chains dominated and so on. Not much happened. Then Aldi and Lidl arrived. A different method of retailing, a smaller number of stock lines, different positioning, lower prices. At which point that competition started to eat the market - net margins for the industry are now in the 2 to 3% range. For everyone has had to do, these recent decades, what Morrisons is now doing. Cut prices to consumers to combat said competition.Those German and Austrian billionaire families which own those two insurgent chains have not done this for our interest. They've done it to amass those billionaire fortunes. But the effect has been to lower food prices for all of us. The capitalists competing for our custom is what produces that benefit to us.Sure, there are alternative ways of attempting to gain this result of an increase in consumer living standards. Venezuela famously decided that the President knew what things should cost and therefore everything should cost what the President said. The result was not an increase in living standards, rather the vanishing of everything from the marketplace.The standard example in the economic literature of this effect is indeed about the butcher and the baker, it's not their benevolence that feeds us, it's their regard for their own self-interest. The particular issue here being that free part of free markets. Which means that people are free to enter the market if they wish - which they have done and to our collective benefit.Free market competition for the win then.
Part 1. Introduction -- Chapter 1: Overview of Japanese Law -- Chapter 2 International Cooperation and Harmonization in Competition Law -- Part 2: Digital Initiatives in Japanese Competition Law -- Chapter 3: Big Data and AI -- Chapter 4: Big Data and AI -- Chapter 5: Perspectives on High-Tech Regulation -- Part 3: The Realities of Various Digital Regulations -- Chapter 6: Data Regulation -- Chapter 7 Digital PF Regulation -- Chapter 8: Competition in Multisided Markets -- Chapter 9 Competition Law and Consumers in Digital Platforms.
In: Oxford Library of Psychology Series
The Oxford Handbook of the Psychology of Competition reviews and organizes the literature on the psychology of competition and brings together leading researchers studying competition across the field of psychology. This volume is a crucial interdisciplinary investigation into the variety of perspectives and approaches to the psychology of competition, facilitating new research and integration in the field.
SSRN
Blog: Blog - Adam Smith Institute
We do grasp that the incentive to invest determines how much is invested. Labour's independent energy advisers have warned the party against watering down its £28bn green spending plans in advance of its promise to create a zero carbon electricity system by 2030.Experts at the climate thinktank Ember, which provided the independent analysis underpinning Labour's green targets, said growing international competition for low-carbon investment from the US and EU could leave the UK lagging in the global race for low-carbon energy.But that strikes us as complete nonsense.Pretty much by definition low-carbon energy is a domestic economic resource. We can't - or at least don't - pack it into ships or shovel it down pipelines and even interconnectors are hugely geographically limited. Renewable energy tends to be produced domestically to be consumed domestically. That's just the way it is.So, what global race? Sure, it might be a good idea that China gets more windmills than Britain does, might be a bad idea. But it's not one of any grand importance in the sense that if they get more then we can't have more.It's actually rather the other way around. We'd be perfectly happy if J Foreigner does all the hard development work, the subsidising of the stuff that doesn't work quite yet, then we install as and when all the kinks are worked out.Note that our critique here is very limited. We're not even commenting upon whether green is the way to go, we should or should not have more renewables and so on. Only on this idea that there's a race on and one in which Britain should subsidise more in order to win.What damn race?
Blog: The Duck of Minerva
When I arrived at the Pentagon in 2009, the Obama administration was just getting its footing as caretakers of the War on Terror. Our focus then was truly global dominion. That meant, yes, killing and capturing whatever the intelligence process coughed up as bad guys no matter who they were or where they were. But […]
In: Majcher and Robertson, Strategic Foresight and EU Competition Law (Working Paper, January 2024)
SSRN
In: LIDC Contributions on Antitrust Law, Intellectual Property and Unfair Competition
This open access volume of LIDC contributions focuses on how competition and intellectual property laws incorporate sustainability objectives. Businesses are increasingly embracing sustainability objectives, driven by the international community. Although competition and intellectual property law are certainly not the only tools for addressing sustainability issues, they can play a role in moving toward a more sustainable society. Sustainability has gained prominence in competition law in all jurisdictions covered in this volume. The contributions focus on classic questions such as whether sustainability agreements restrict competition and, if so, to what extent businesses can be exempted on efficiency grounds. The papers also raise a number of questions, in particular concerning the treatment of non-market efficiencies. The soft law and case law produced by competition authorities are examined, and the leadership role of some competition authorities in the field – from advocacy to policy papers and sustainability guidelines – is highlighted. The authors call for more individual guidance to provide enhanced transparency and clarity to industry, advisors and society at large on sustainability issues, with guidelines or sustainability-related block exemptions providing even greater legal certainty. With regard to intellectual property, the contributions examine various important issues, such as the need for intellectual property rights to remain technology-neutral, ways to promote the use of sustainable technologies and incentives for licensing, and ways to promote the dissemination of sustainable technologies, including compulsory licensing, cross-licensing, open source or FRAND licensing, and replacing the destruction of counterfeit goods with recycling. The papers also discuss greenwashing and how it can be addressed through revisions to trademarks and related rights.
SSRN
Blog: Blog - Adam Smith Institute
Even after recent reductions, the UK end-user price of electricity is high by international standards. In January the price per KWh was 40.7 euro cents, compared to France c€29.1, Spain c€22.0, and the US c€16.3. High electricity prices damage UK competitiveness.The lack of competition in the electricity market is the main reason for this. And things can only get worse. For years, electricity has been only 20% of the energy market, so there is at least some competition from other sources. Soon, Net Zero 2050 policy implies that electricity will be nearly five times bigger.The problem stems from the fact that in 1989, Margaret Thatcher only partially denationalised the electricity market. A key element, the National Grid, remained a monopoly structure and the regulator Offer (which later became Ofgem), kept government in control.Today, both Labour and the Conservatives intend to return electricity to monopoly. Labour's argument is that we will need a central planning authority, 'Great British Energy'. This is supposed to save households £92. But how? Certainly not from a reduction in bureaucracy: it seems highly unlikely that this nominally independent but publicly owned authority will replace the 4,000+ Department of Energy Security and Net Zero's core staff. We can confidently expect greater bureaucracy as well as less competition in the sector under this plan.To the Conservatives, going green and expanding the power transmission infrastructure are the priorities. The UK presently spends hundreds of millions of pounds in constraint payments to energy generators, simply because the existing grid infrastructure to absorb all the energy produced; with increased reliance on electricity, better infrastructure is needed. But the Conservatives have no coherent plan on how to produce that extra electricity. They talk up nuclear but have made no commitments to any new reactors.If we are to reduce prices, secure supply and improve customers' experience, however, we need to complete the original aims of privatisation and introduce more competition within the electricity sector. Here's how.The National Grid should be replaced by privately-owned Distribution System Operators (DSOs), which would buy from generators and sell to households and business. Although DSOs would be largely regional, each customer location should be entitled to buy from any DSO nationwide. Fuel poverty payments should be funded by the Department of Work and Pensions, not the operators.In effect, each DSO would be a regional grid selling direct to consumers anywhere in the UK. They would balance electricity in and out, normally by buying and selling from/to each other, though national shortages/excesses would be traded with IMPEX (buying from/selling to) Europe. IMPEX would also be a grid, buying and selling to UK DSOs and European distribution companies. It would need to balance purchases with sales and breakeven or make a marginal profit. The best regulator is competition, and with greater competition in the electricity market, the Competition and Markets Authority should take over from Ofgem (but not set prices as Ofgem does).With these reforms, the original objectives of electricity privatisation — a competitive and consumer-focused industry — would finally be realised. This would give consumers a better deal and boost the UK's international competitiveness.
SSRN
In: Dynamic Competition Initiative (DCI) Working Paper 1-2024
SSRN