About this site

neotherbusiness is a business blog where you can share views and opinions about business news and developments in Newcastle and the North-East.

Recent comments

Recent Posts

Sponsored links

Feeds

  • Add to:
  • icongoogle.gif
  • iconyahoo.gif
  • iconbloglines.gif
  • iconaol.gif

Blog Authors

Archives

Links

Sponsored links


Should we penalise firms that price-fix?

Posted by on July 24, 2008 9:43 AM | 

IN TODAY'S so-called free trade market, JEZ DAVISON questions the wisdom of punishing firms for price-fixing....

ANOTHER week, another blow for business. A tobacco manufacturer and five retailers have been stung for the biggest collective penalty handed down by the UK's competition watchdog for price-rigging.


The Office of Fair Trading (OFT) slapped a £132m fine on Asda, Somerfield, First Quench, TM Retail, One Stop Stores and tobacco firm Gallaher after they admitted they had tried to inflate the cost of cigarettes.


While some would champion the case as a moral victory for fair play, I would ask whether clamping down on price-fixing is really necessary.


The reason is that companies don't set prices; consumers do.


If the companies in question continue to artificially inflate prices, consumers will eventually walk away.


Even if smoking is considered necessary in these stressed times, there is a limit to people's budgets. Consumer loyalty counts for nothing when disposable income dries up. Regulars in local pubs, for example, are starting to seek cheaper alternatives or are simply refusing to go out.


The other main justification for stamping out price-fixing is that it protects small firms from being squeezed out of the tendering process and squandering a fortune in submitting bids that have no chance of being accepted.


But in practice, many Teesside contractors say they don't bother bidding for large-scale public tenders because the cost is too prohibitive and fees aren't reimbursed if they don't win the work.


In addition, they say that joining a tender consortia - often the best way to win these contracts - poses unnecessary risks to their business and often results in them not being paid on time.


"Tobaccogate" also highlights the wider issue of competition law and in particular, the worry that one company (or group of companies) could dominate the market.


In retail this is already happening, with the large sheds pricing some smaller firms out of business.


At the risk of sounding harsh, however, all's fair in love and business and savvy firms have shown they can survive by diversifying their product range.


And if a company was to capture, say, 80% of its market, shouldn't we be celebrating the management's shrewd entrepreneurialism rather than sending for the heavy mob?

Comments (1)

OR_David wrote...

What a confused article! The link between price fixing and competitive tendering is extremely tenuous and it is far from correct to say that "companies don't set prices; consumers do". Actually, consumers respond to prices. If consumers really set prices then why are we all paying £1.10-£1.20 a gallon for petrol?

The article's final paragraphs really do beggar belief. The history of business is littered with examples of where companies have abused monopoly positions. Are you seriously arguing that Asda, Gallagher, et al should be congratulated for a jolly price-fixing wheeze?

You would have been better focussing your article on the real barriers to entry for small contractors gaining work on public sector tenders and how government might address some of these by reducing some of the regulatory requirements.

Jez Davison might be questioning the wisdom of punishing firms for price-fixing. Personally, I would question the editor's wisdom in allowing Jez Davison to write articles on economics...

Posted by: OR_David  | August 8, 2008 1:32 PM

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)