{"title":"The Goals of Competition Law","authors":"R. Ahdar","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198855606.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Commerce Act 1986 expressly states its object is to promote “effective or workable competition.” This traditional Harvard School approach has been consistently assailed by big business interests in New Zealand, assisted by a phalanx of “down-under” Chicago School economists and lawyers. Chicagoans have had minor successes in terms of amendments to the principal Act, and some quite notable court victories, but the glittering prize, the overall objective of the Act, has remained unchanged. Chicago won several battles, but lost the war. A major amendment to the Act in 2001, promoted by a Labour government, recast its object to state that its purpose was “to promote competition in markets for the long-term benefit of consumers within New Zealand.” After a quiet period where nothing seemed to have changed, the most recent signs are that a mild preference for consumers is appearing. The chapter also examines the international competitiveness arguments of Michael Porter.","PeriodicalId":254374,"journal":{"name":"The Evolution of Competition Law in New Zealand","volume":"173 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Evolution of Competition Law in New Zealand","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198855606.003.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The Commerce Act 1986 expressly states its object is to promote “effective or workable competition.” This traditional Harvard School approach has been consistently assailed by big business interests in New Zealand, assisted by a phalanx of “down-under” Chicago School economists and lawyers. Chicagoans have had minor successes in terms of amendments to the principal Act, and some quite notable court victories, but the glittering prize, the overall objective of the Act, has remained unchanged. Chicago won several battles, but lost the war. A major amendment to the Act in 2001, promoted by a Labour government, recast its object to state that its purpose was “to promote competition in markets for the long-term benefit of consumers within New Zealand.” After a quiet period where nothing seemed to have changed, the most recent signs are that a mild preference for consumers is appearing. The chapter also examines the international competitiveness arguments of Michael Porter.