Johns Hopkins University Carey Business School

Can Firms Be Trusted After Easing of Collusion Rules During Pandemic?

Newswise — Around the start of the COVID-19 crisis, U.S. and European government officials decided to relax their usual vigilance of possible collusion among business interests. The authorities took this uncommon action to promote intercorporate cooperation on the manufacture of sorely needed supplies in the fight against the pandemic, especially medical equipment.

Economist Valerie Suslow, a professor and the vice dean of faculty and research at the Johns Hopkins Carey Business School, has devoted years of study to industrial organization, with a focus on the causes, tactics, and repercussions of cartel activity. In the following Q&A, Suslow and her frequent research collaborator, University of Michigan economist Margaret Levenstein, discuss the implications of easing antitrust guidelines during the pandemic – both the positive and negative effects.

 

QUESTION: In what ways have government authorities eased antitrust regulations during the COVID-19 crisis?

SUSLOW AND LEVENSTEIN: The Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, together with the Federal Trade Commission, released a joint statement in March which explicitly indicated that coordination among those developing improved tests, treatments, and vaccines is permitted. They emphasized that “there are many ways firms, including competitors, can engage in procompetitive collaboration that does not violate the antitrust laws.”

Alliances between manufacturing firms that might otherwise be seen as competitors are permitted to bring technical know-how and resources together to address the pandemic crisis. These agencies are using existing and well-established processes to review such proposals for collaboration and are prioritizing these requests to give companies rapid turnaround on decisions. The European Union has made a similar statement, as have the competition authorities in many other countries.

 

Is this relaxing of regulations to be open ended or set for a finite period?

The joint statement from DOJ and FTC says that it is for a limited time: “These sorts of joint efforts, limited in duration and necessary to assist patients, consumers, and communities affected by COVID-19 and its aftermath, may be a necessary response to exigent circumstances that provide Americans with products or services that might not be available otherwise.”

 

What do you see as the positives of this policy change? And the negatives?

On the positive side: In the case of a crisis around a novel disease, existing supply chains are not likely to immediately produce what is necessary – for example, a large increase in ventilators or a new vaccine. We ordinarily rely on prices as signals for allocating resources. In a crisis, there isn’t time for that. An ordinary increase in demand – say, for face masks – would lead to an increased price, which would in turn cause companies to increase output from existing plants or build additional capacity; the market price would return to its long run cost while satisfying the increased demand. But it takes time to bring on new capacity and forge novel relationships along the supply chain. Firms may be reluctant to invest to increase supply if they expect this newly increased demand to go away quickly. Allowing firms to collaborate temporarily may reduce the costs and the risk of making these necessary rapid changes.

As for negatives: Research shows that practicing collusion is good for perfecting it. Economic research on the impact of periods of permissiveness toward collusion suggests that firms allowed to cooperate during the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) in the early 1930s were more effective at colluding tacitly when antitrust laws were again actively enforced.

During the Great Depression, a period of significant price deflation, Presidents Hoover and Roosevelt both imagined that price fixing would stem deflation and help in recovery. The more common approach today is to use monetary and fiscal policy to combat the business cycle. After NIRA was found unconstitutional, Roosevelt became a strong proponent of competition policy, and the U.S. promoted the adoption of such policies around the globe after World War II.

The analogy to the situation we find ourselves in today is that the primary tools for combating the pandemic should be public health tools. Competition authorities are appropriately focused on providing exemptions and flexibility narrowly, to address the public health crisis, without unduly undermining competition for the long term.

 

What can government do to ensure that companies don’t take undue advantage of the situation, in either the near or long term?

After Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to counteract the Great Recession, the DOJ launched a program to train government officials at all levels on detecting collusion to reduce bid rigging (a form of collusion) in procurement. Oversight of the dispersal of large quantities of money is critical to preventing collusion and corruption. There are other mechanisms that antitrust authorities can put into place and pitfalls to watch for, as we have written about before.

The biggest long-term threat to competition may be from closures of otherwise stable and productive firms, which result in increased concentration of market power. Similarly, there may be acquisitions of firms that have been weakened by the crisis.  The crisis has brought attention to the level of concentration that has been permitted to emerge in many supply chains (e.g., meat packing). This level of concentration can have efficiencies but can also undermine competition, and in this instance can create serious vulnerabilities in food supply.

Following the Great Recession, the rate of entry of new firms in the U.S. stayed low for a decade. Not surprisingly, entry of new businesses has plummeted in the past two months. We know that new entry is an important component of competition, deterring collusion and bringing new ideas, technologies, and products to the forefront. It is critical that steps be taken to encourage new firm startups (or re-starts, for those who are now paused) in order to preserve competition as we recover.

Over the past few decades, the U.S. and many other nations have greatly enhanced their capacity to guard against corporate collusion. Given this level of government scrutiny, what would lead some companies to run the risk of getting caught at cartel activity?

There’s a lot of money to be made by raising prices, and certain firms (particularly in certain types of industries, locally, nationally, and internationally) are willing to take the risk.  At this time, there may be a sense, given signals from DOJ and others, that the government is likely to be more flexible, reducing the deterrence that has resulted over the past couple of decades from earlier prosecutions.

 




Filters close

Showing results

1120 of 4578
Released: 15-Jan-2021 1:30 PM EST
New England Journal of Medicine publishes COVID-19 treatment trial results
University of Texas at San Antonio

A clinical trial involving COVID-19 patients hospitalized at UT Health San Antonio and University Health, among roughly 100 sites globally, found that a combination of the drugs baricitinib and remdesivir reduced time to recovery, according to results published Dec. 11 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Released: 15-Jan-2021 12:40 PM EST
DNA test can quickly identify pneumonia in patients with severe COVID-19, aiding faster treatment
University of Cambridge

Researchers have developed a DNA test to quickly identify secondary infections in COVID-19 patients, who have double the risk of developing pneumonia while on ventilation than non-COVID-19 patients.

Released: 15-Jan-2021 12:30 PM EST
Fight CRC To Present Research Findings on The Impact of COVID-19 on the Colorectal Cancer Community at 2021 GI ASCO
Fight Colorectal Cancer

Fight Colorectal Cancer presents abstract at Gastrointestinal Cancer Symposium highlighting the need to address the barriers and opportunities for care within the colorectal cancer community during the COVID-19 pandemic

Released: 15-Jan-2021 12:25 PM EST
Technion to Award Honorary Doctorate to Pfizer CEO Dr. Albert Bourla
American Technion Society

Israel's Technion will award an honorary doctorate to Pfizer CEO and Chairman Dr. Albert Bourla, for leading the development of the novel vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The honorary doctorate will be conferred at the Technion Board of Governors meeting in November 2021.

Released: 15-Jan-2021 11:30 AM EST
UW researchers develop tool to equitably distribute limited vaccines
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Researchers at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health and UW Health have developed a tool that incorporates a person’s age and socioeconomic status to prioritize vaccine distribution among people who otherwise share similar risks due to their jobs.

Released: 15-Jan-2021 11:20 AM EST
Will Covid-19 kill the high street once and for all?
University of Sheffield

The shift to home working during Covid-19, or ‘Zoomshock’, threatens the survival of local goods and services provided in city centres and business parks

14-Jan-2021 5:00 PM EST
AACI Partners With Federal Vaccine Panel to Promote Cancer Patient Health
Association of American Cancer Institutes (AACI)

AACI was invited last summer to join the Vaccine Consultation Panel (VCP) alongside other leading health and science organizations in the U.S. Through the VCP, AACI has received periodic updates on the development and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and participated in efforts to educate the cancer center community and the general public on the importance of widespread vaccine uptake.

Released: 15-Jan-2021 8:55 AM EST
The First Dose of the Pfizer Vaccine Gives About 50% COVID Protection, Not 91% Claimed by Those Who Want to Speed Up Immunization
Newswise

The NEJM paper actually states that the efficacy between the first and second doses was found to be 52 percent when given 21 days apart. After the second dose, the efficacy raises to 95 percent.

Released: 15-Jan-2021 8:20 AM EST
Houston Methodist study finds males of all ages more affected by COVID-19 than females
Houston Methodist

A new Houston Methodist study found males are more likely to test positive for COVID-19, have complications and die from the virus than females, independent of age. The peer-reviewed observational study appears in PLOS ONE, a multidisciplinary journal published by the Public Library of Science.

Released: 15-Jan-2021 8:20 AM EST
NIH Revises Treatment Guidelines for Ivermectin for the Treatment of COVID-19
Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC Alliance)

NIH Revises Treatment Guidelines for Ivermectin for the Treatment of COVID-19 Ivermectin is Now a Therapeutic Option for Doctors & Prescribers


Showing results

1120 of 4578

close
1.60649