III.Will the Restructuring Paradigms Currently Underway in the Telecommunications and Electric Utility Industries Really Lead to More Competition and De-Regulation?

III.Will the Restructuring Paradigms Currently Underway in the Telecommunications and Electric Utility Industries Really Lead to More Competition and De-Regulation?

A.Purpose of Regulation

Believe it or not, there is really a purpose to regulation — unfortunately, everyone appears to have either forgotten it or deliberately ignored it. As stated supra, the core of this theory is quite straightforward — i.e., that economic regulation is supposed to be a substitute for, and not a complement of, competitive rivalry. It is not — contrary to popular belief — “because we can.”⁵² Moreover, many people fail to understand that while appropriately tailored regulation can produce certain benefits for consumers, regulation — by its very definition — also imposes significant economic costs on society, no matter how innocuous, de minimis, or well-meaning the regulation is intended to be. These economic costs include compliance costs on those firms subject to such regulation, the possible deterrence or delay of innovation, the creation of market structures which can promote collusive behavior and, as discussed in more detail below, the often denied, yet highly ubiquitous (and insidious), issue of “regulatory capture.” Thus, when the economic costs of regulation outweigh the public interest benefits the regulation was originally designed to achieve, it is clearly time to modify or even outright remove this regulation.⁵³

It is also very important to understand that the term “market performance” is very different from the term “competition.” “Competition,” as defined in the dictionary, is just the act or process of “competing.”⁵⁴ On the other hand, “market performance” indicates whether there is sufficient rivalry to produce static economic efficiencies (declining prices), dynamic economic efficiencies (innovation in new services or technologies), or both. If a market is performing well, then consumers will enjoy other societal benefits (e.g., “Apples in the Schools,” cellular phones for the homeless) and stringent regulation, therefore, should no longer be necessary.⁵⁵ As such, regulatory policies, to the extent practicable, should always seek to promote good market performance so that competitive, rather than regulated, markets can emerge.⁵⁶

Given the above, how do we achieve this goal? Easy: by formulating policies designed to establish, to the extent practicable, a structural framework conducive to competitive rivalry, under which firms will be unable to engage in strategic anticompetitive conduct — even if they tried.⁵⁷ A market structure that is conducive to competitive rivalry is the key to achieving real competition. Unfortunately, however, given: (1) the sea of new regulations spewing forth from the FCC and FERC; (2) a demonstrable trend in attempted and successful reconcentration in both the telecommunications and utility industries; and (3) policies that do absolutely nothing to encourage additional facilities-based entry, it would appear that neither “de-regulation” nor “competition” are occurring in any form that would square with the basic purpose of regulation articulated above.⁵⁸

B.What is a Transition Period?

The popular response to this criticism is that present restructuring policies are strictly designed to manage the “transition to competition.” Unfortunately, however, as no one to date (neither private nor public sector) has articulated a clear vision of long-term telecommunications or electric utility industry market structure and performance, this so-called “transition period” to competition may be a very long time to endure. Instead, it often seems that current policies are simply intended to provide nothing more than another justification for increased government intervention — regulatory or antitrust — into the market to reallocate wealth from one sector to another, without any rational nexus to the maximization of overall consumer welfare.⁵⁹

Formulating this vision — and the appropriate mechanisms to implement this vision — requires more than just issuing press releases promising that competition and de-regulation are here. Rather, it is going to take a lot of hard work. As a first step, both the public and private sectors must approach these “restructuring” issues from both a static and a dynamic perspective. Otherwise, while it is certainly very nice that everybody can apparently conjugate the verb “to compete” in the same sentence as the word “market” these days (indeed, “competition” seems to be the de rigueur buzzword of the Nineties), without a clear vision about long-term industry structure, current regulatory policies may actually harm consumer welfare for future generations.⁶⁰

Despite this caveat, a close look at the various economic public-policy paradigms introduced over the last five years nonetheless indicates that a “Potter-Stewart-I-Know-it-When-I-See-It” test of anticompetitive conduct or market power is often an acceptable (and preferred) substitute for sound legal and economic analysis in public-policy decision-making. However, because of the significant societal and economic implications raised whenever government decides to “restructure” one or more major industrial sectors of the American economy, the mere use of economic “buzzwords” — without any understanding of the likely repercussions of such government intervention — is unlikely to result in any tangible benefits in consumer welfare.⁶¹

Download 244.32 Kb.

Share with your friends: