The literature on competition policy in emerging markets is divided into two conflicting schools of thought. One school argues in favour of convergence with the efficiency-based policy, framework in advanced countries. The other school advocates a broad competition policy specific to the requirements of the emerging markets, based on both economic and non-economic goals. Taking the case of India, an emerging market economy, with special focus on abuse of dominant position, this paper shows that there is a tendency towards convergence to the efficiency-based approach of advanced countries with some weightage given to domestic goals. This could be attributed to emerging market’s increased requirement of the efficiency-based analysis and growing interdependence on other economies in the post-liberalization period, on one hand, and lack of expertise in the emerging markets to develop indigenous competition law, on the other. Moreover, owing to more similarity in economic, regulatory and institutional conditions, there is convergence with the competition policy in the European Union rather than that in the United States. The article also shows that the specific convergence approach adopted by emerging markets may not always be in their domestic interest.
BakhoumM. (2011). A dual language in modern competition law?—Efficiency approach versus development approach and implications for developing countries. World Competition, 34(3), 495–522.
2.
BhattacharjeaA. (2001). Competition policy: India and the WTO. Economic and Political Weekly, 36(51), 4710–4713.
3.
BhattacharjeaA. (2003). India’s competition policy: An assessment. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(34), 3561–3574.
4.
BhattacharjeaA. (2010). Of omissions and commissions: India’s competition laws. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(35), 31–37.
5.
Case Number 10/2013. Shri Shantaram Walvalkar vs. M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd & Others. Retrieved from http://www.cci.gov.in/May2011/OrderOfCommission/102013.pdf
6.
Case Number 3/2013. Mr Ajit Mishra vs. Supertech Limited. Retrieved from http://www.cci.gov.in/May2011/OrderOfCommission/032013.pdf
7.
Case Number 24/2011. Shri Sonam Sharma vs Apple Inc. USA & Others. Retrieved from http://www.cci.gov.in/May2011/OrderOfCommission/242011.pdf
8.
Case Number 67/2012. UPSE Securities Limited vs National Stock Exchange of India Limited. Retrieved from http://www.cci.gov.in/May2011/OrderOfCommission/672012.pdf
9.
Case Number 4/2009. M. P. Mehrotra vs Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. & Ors. Retrieved from http://www.cci.gov.in/May2011/OrderOfCommission/662012.pdf
10.
Case Number 13/2009. MCX Stock Exchange Ltd. & Ors. vs National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. & Ors. Retrieved from http://www.cci.gov.in/May2011/OrderOfCommission/MCXMainOrder240611.pdf
11.
ChakravartyS. (2006). Why India adopted a competition law?Jaipur, India: CUTS International.
12.
ChengK. T. (2012). Convergence and its discontents: A reconsideration of the merits of convergence of global competition law. Chicago Journal of International Law, 12(2), 433–490.
13.
Clayton Act 1914, 15 USCA 12 et seq., 12–14. Commission Notice on agreements of minor importance which do not appreciably restrict competition under Article 81(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (de minimis)OJ C 368, 22.12.2001, 13–15.
14.
Competition Act 2002. Retrieved from http://www.cci.gov.in/images/media/competition_act/act2002.pdf?phpMyAdmin=QuqXb-8V2yTtoq617iR6-k2VA8d
15.
DabbahM. M. (2004). EC and UK competition law: Commentary, cases and materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
DelrahimM. (2005). The long and winding road: Convergence in the application of antitrust to intellectual property. George Mason Law Review, 13(264), 259.
17.
European Commission. (2000). XXIX Report on Competition Policy, 1999. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities.
18.
FoxE. (2007). Economic development, poverty and antitrust: The other path. Southwestern Journal of Law & Trade in the Americas, 13, 211–235.
19.
FoxE. (1997). US and EU competition law: A comparison. In GrahamE. M.RichardsonJ. D., (Eds.), Global competition policy (pp. 339–354). Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.
20.
GalM. (2004). The ecology of antitrust: Preconditions for competition law enforcement in developing countries. Competition, competitiveness and development: Lessons from developing countries. UNCTAD. Retrieved from http://unctad.org/en/docs/ditcclp20041ch1_en.pdf
21.
GanslandtM. (2006). New rules for dominant firms in Europe (March 2006). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=970840
22.
GerberD. J. (1999), The U. S. Europe conflict over the globalization of antitrust law: A legal experience perspective. New England Law Review, 34(Fall), 123–143.
23.
GoyderD. G. (1993). EC competition law (2nd ed.). Clarendon: Oxford University Press.
24.
HristovH.GeorgievaR. (2013). The EU and US divergence on competition law. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.co.in/scholar?cluster=10823494771345838430&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
25.
IacobucciE. M.WinterR. A. (2010). Abuse of joint dominance in Canadian competition policy. University of Toronto Law Journal, 60(2), 219–237.
26.
ICN Report (2007). Report on the objectives of unilateral conduct laws, assessment of dominance/substantial market power, and state-created monopolies. Presented atthe 6th annual conference of the ICN. Moscow. Retrieved from http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc353.pdf
27.
JacobsonJ. M. (2007). Antitrust Law Developments (6th ed.). USA: American Bar Association.
28.
KauperT. E. (1996). The problem of market definition under EC competition law. Fordham International Law Journal, 20(5), 1681–1767.
29.
KhannaT.PalepuK. (1997). Why focused strategies may be wrong for emerging markets. Harvard Business Review, 75(4), 41–54.
30.
KhemaniS. R. (1996). The interface between competition and trade policies. In BoraB.PangestuM. (Eds.), Priority issues in trade and investment liberalization: Implications for the Asia Pacific Region (pp. 105–109). Singapore: Pacific Economic Cooperation Council.
31.
KovacicW. E. (1996). The competition policy entrepreneur and law reform in formerly communist and socialist countries. American University Journal of International Law & Policy, 11(3), 437.
32.
KovacicW. E. (1997). Getting started: Creating new competition policy institutions in transition economies. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 23(2), 403.
33.
KovacicW. E. (1999). Capitalism, socialism, and competition policy in Vietnam. Antitrust, 13(Summer), 57.
34.
KovacicW. E. (2003). The modern evolution of U. S. competition policy norms. Antitrust Law Journal, 71(2), 377.
35.
KovacicW. E. (2008). Competition policy in the European Union and the United States: Convergence or divergence?Presented at Bates White Fifth Annual Antitrust Conference. Retrieved from http://www.ftc.gov/public-statements/2008/06/competition-policy-european-union-and-united-states-convergence-or
36.
KumarV.SinghP. (2013a). India’s clumsy legislature and the gradually evolving competition law,East Asia Forum. Retrieved from http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/06/07/indias-clumsy-legislature-and-the-gradually-evolving-competition-law/
37.
KumarV.SinghP. (2013b). Competition law and the entertainment industry in India: A case of overreach?East Asia Forum Retrieved from http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2013/03/01/competition-law-and-the-entertainment-industry-in-india-a-case-of-overreach/
38.
MehraP. (2011). Supranational agency: A solution for conflict in international mergers? In HollerManfredHudsonJohn (Eds.), EURAS Yearbook of Standardization (vol. 6, pp. 545–574). Munich: Accedo Verlagsgesellschaft.
39.
MottaM. (2005). Competition policy: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
40.
MRTPA. (1969). Monopolies Restrictive Trade Practices Act. Retrieved from http://www.mca.gov.in/Ministry/actsbills/pdf/The_Monopolies_and_Restrictive_Trade_Practices_Act_1969.pdf
41.
NeumannM. (2003). Competition policy: History, theory and practice (3rd ed.). Michigan, MI: Edward Elgar.
42.
PageW. E. (2008). The ideological origins and evolution of U. S. antitrust law. Issues in competition law and policy (ABA section of antitrust law 2008, 1).
43.
SalopS. C. (2000). The first principles approach to antitrust, kodak, antitrust at millennium. Antitrust Law Journal, 68(2), 187–202.
44.
SinghA. (2002). Competition and competition policy in emerging markets: International and developmental dimensions. G-24 Discussion Paper Series, UNCTAD and Centre for International Development Harvard University, No. 18.
45.
SinghA.DhumaleR. (1999). Competition policy, development and developing countries. Working Paper 7, Trade-Related Agenda Development and Equity Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey vs. US, 221 US 1 (1911) (“Standard Oil”), 4. Società Italiana Vetro SpA, Fabbrica Pisana SpA and PPG Vernante Pennitalia SpA vs Commission of the European Communities (T-68/89, T-77/89, T-78/89 (“Italian Flat Glass”).
46.
Treaty of Rome 1957. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/emu_history/documents/treaties/rometreaty2.pdf
47.
Treaty establishing the European Communities, as amended (the “Treaty”). Retrieved from http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12002E/pdf/12002E_EN.pdf
48.
Treaty on the functioning of European Union (TFEU). Retrieved from http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0047:0200:en:PDF
49.
UNCTAD (2002). Closer multilateral co-operation on competition policy: The development dimension. Consolidated report of the four regional seminars on post-Doha mandate. United Nations, New York and Geneva.
50.
UngerB.WaardenF. V. (1995). Introduction: an interdisciplinary approach to convergence. In UngerB.WaardenF. V. (Eds.), Convergence or diversity?: Internationalization and economic policy response. Avebury: Aldershot and Brookfield, USA.
51.
VickersJ. (2005). Abuse of market power. The Economic Journal, 115(504), F244–F261.
52.
World Economic Outlook (2013). International Monetary Fund. Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/pdf/text.pdf
