当前位置: X-MOL 学术Journal of Antitrust Enforcement › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
COVID-19 and competition—aspiring for more than our old normality?
Journal of Antitrust Enforcement Pub Date : 2020-06-11 , DOI: 10.1093/jaenfo/jnaa031
Maurice E Stucke , Ariel Ezrachi

Whatever the market ailment, competition is typically the cure. Except now. Competition among nations or states for ventilators and masks is causing more, rather than fewer, deaths. The COVID-19 pandemic has prompted competition agencies around the world to acknowledge the need for collaboration at times of crisis. But what happens after the pandemic? Do we return to competition as the magical elixir? Think about it. Whatever illness our society suffers, competition is often the cure. Do we want better education for our children? Create competition among public schools. Better, more cost-effective, efficiently managed prisons? Same principle. More efficient health services? Same. Use the magic formula—increase choice and competitive pressure and limit government intervention. The competition elixir has two alluring features. First, competition seemingly works well, regardless of the ethical scruples of its market participants. Judges, policymakers, and our economic theories often characterize competition as a pursuit where corporate and individual greed benefits society. When unleashed, the rugged pursuit of self-interest will deliver efficiencies, lower prices, and more choices. Secondly, competition is cheap to administer: it works far better when the state does less. The government still has a limited role (such as defining property rights, providing a well-functioning judiciary, reducing transaction costs and corruption, etc), but the harm is typically ascribed to too much (rather than too little) government intervention. No doubt, competition often improves our welfare. Yet, before the COVID-19 outbreak and even before the 2008 financial crisis, many of us were already feeling uneasy about the results of unbridled competition (even if we had not identified it as the cause of our problems). Despite the promise of prosperity, we may have been working harder, longer hours at our jobs, but for less money, fewer or non-existent benefits, and no security. And those low prices we paid may also mean lower quality.

中文翻译:

COVID-19 和竞争——渴望超越我们的旧常态?

无论市场有什么问题,竞争通常都是解药。除了现在。国家或州之间对呼吸机和口罩的竞争正在导致更多而不是更少的死亡。COVID-19 大流行促使世界各地的竞争管理机构认识到在危机时期进行合作的必要性。但是大流行之后会发生什么?我们会作为神奇的灵丹妙药重返竞争吗?想想看。无论我们的社会遭受何种疾病,竞争往往是解药。我们想让我们的孩子接受更好的教育吗?在公立学校之间建立竞争。更好、更具成本效益、管理效率更高的监狱?原理一样。更高效的医疗服务?相同的。使用神奇的公式——增加选择和竞争压力并限制政府干预。竞争长生不老药有两个诱人的特点。第一的,无论市场参与者的道德顾虑如何,竞争似乎都运作良好。法官、政策制定者和我们的经济理论经常将竞争描述为企业和个人的贪婪使社会受益的一种追求。当释放出来时,对自身利益的粗暴追求将带来效率、更低的价格和更多的选择。其次,管理竞争的成本很低:当国家做得少时,竞争会好得多。政府的作用仍然有限(例如界定产权、提供运作良好的司法机构、降低交易成本和腐败等),但损害通常归因于政府干预过多(而不是过少)。毫无疑问,竞争常常会改善我们的福利。然而,在 COVID-19 爆发之前,甚至在 2008 年金融危机之前,我们中的许多人已经对肆无忌惮的竞争的结果感到不安(即使我们没有将其确定为我们问题的原因)。尽管有繁荣的希望,但我们可能工作更努力,工作时间更长,但钱更少,福利更少或根本不存在,而且没有安全感。我们支付的那些低价也可能意味着更低的质量。
更新日期:2020-06-11
down
wechat
bug