top of page

Reduced Competition: Government Intervention and the Risk of Monopolies or Oligopolies

Competition is the cornerstone of a vibrant and dynamic market economy. It fosters innovation, efficiency, and consumer choice. However, when government intervention disrupts the natural forces of competition, the risk of monopolies or oligopolies emerges. Prominent economists from Hume to Sowell, recorded over the past 250 years, have explored how government intervention inadvertently reduces competition and leads to detrimental economic outcomes. I hope to delve into the concept of reduced competition, examine the consequences of government intervention, and draw insights from influential thinkers and authors.

The Importance of Competition

Competition is a driving force that compels businesses to continuously improve their products and services while keeping prices affordable. Competition provides consumers with a wide range of choices and acts as a check on the abuse of market power. When businesses compete, they strive to offer better quality and value to attract customers. This process spurs innovation, efficiency gains, and lower prices, benefiting consumers and driving economic growth.

Government Intervention and Its Impact

While governments often intervene with good intentions, their actions inadvertently reduce competition. One common form of intervention is the imposition of excessive regulations and barriers to entry. These regulations can disproportionately burden small and new businesses, favouring established players who have the resources to comply. Friedrich Hayek warned in "The road to Serfdom" that such regulations stifle competition by creating barriers that deter new entrants and entrench the position of existing companies. As a result, competition is weakened, and consumers face limited choices.

This was never as clear as the massive economic damage imposed on Australian small businesses during the 2020 COVID response. Although this was mainly due to the actions of state and Territory governments following the directions of unelected health industry bureaucrats, the Federal government was vicariously liable for not protecting the citizens from the tyranny of such government interventions.

Another way in which government intervention reduces competition is through the granting of special privileges or subsidies to certain industries or firms. Such favours tilt the playing field in favour of the recipients, creating an uneven competitive landscape. This results in monopolistic or oligopolistic market structures where a few dominant players control significant market share, limiting competition and evidently leading to higher prices and reduced consumer welfare.

Government intervention inadvertently creates monopolies or oligopolies through regulations that protect incumbents or restrict market entry. Licencing requirements, for example, can make it difficult for new businesses to enter certain industries, effectively granting established firms a protected position. Such regulations shield existing businesses from competition, leading to reduced incentives for innovation and efficiency.

A far more egregious act of local government intervention in recent times has also been to share private and confidential "industry-developed" training requirements with unqualified and unskilled competitors. One can only assume it was seeking to reduce the value and benefit to industries that have developed specialisation techniques, This unethical and despicable breach of confidentiality has often led to innovators leaving the Territory. Examples of this were rife during the set-up of the HIA, and the established businesses that refused to deal with the leaking organisation.

Consequences of Reduced Competition

Reduced competition due to government intervention can have detrimental economic consequences. Monopolies and oligopolies, with their significant market power, exploit consumers by charging higher prices or offering lower-quality products or services. With limited or no competitive pressure, these firms have less incentive to innovate or invest in improving their offerings. Monopolies or oligopolies, shielded from competition, become complacent, leading to reduced efficiency and a lack of responsiveness to consumer preferences.

Reduced competition hampers economic dynamism and impedes innovation. In a competitive market, businesses are incentivized to innovate, find new ways to satisfy consumer demands, and drive productivity gains. The competition serves as a discovery process, with decentralized knowledge guiding market participants toward more efficient and innovative solutions. When competition is curtailed, this discovery process is hindered, and the potential for economic progress is limited.

Reduced competition stifles entrepreneurship and hampers job creation. New business formation and job growth are often driven by innovative startups and small enterprises. Excessive government regulations and barriers to entry discourage entrepreneurial activity, limiting the entry of new firms and the creation of new jobs. Reducing competition not only harms consumers but also deprives individuals of opportunities for upward mobility and economic advancement.

Competition is a vital pillar of a healthy and thriving market economy. Promoting efficiency, innovation, and consumer choice. It is crucial for policymakers to carefully consider the unintended consequences of their interventions and strive to create a regulatory environment that fosters competition, encouraging innovation, and economic growth, and ultimately benefiting consumers and society as a whole.

3 views0 comments


bottom of page