Antitrust regulations take a truly dynamic approach to the issue in question. They adapt to the continual evolution of the markets, and objectives evolve with time. Globalization and the international crisis are both factors that have a significant effect on competition. The original inspiration behind America’s 1890 Sherman Act has more-or-less been forgotten but its objective, in fact, was to protect small businesses from “the giants”. Later, the goal was to achieve greater general prosperity by encouraging competition. In recent years, however, the rationale for that original dilemma faced by US capitalism has reappeared, so is the current focus the right way to go about meeting efficiency targets? If it is, then the question that needs asking is, to what extent does the plurality of the market need to be sacrificed in order to ensure that consumers benefit from the improved quality and price of some products? On the other hand, global competition requires businesses to make increasingly bigger savings, to expand, collaborate and to physically move the geographic location of their various production stages to places that offer greater advantages – thereby creating global value chains (GVCs). The increased international aspect of markets means mastering the different regulations imposed by all the various countries. In Europe, national authorities work together to reduce obstacles and barriers and to make the rules and procedures adopted in different member states more uniform. Increasing collaboration between EU nations and economic partners outside Europe is another challenge. In some markets, moreover, there is an urgent need to establish and consolidate regulations throughout Europe – energy and telecommunications being two prime examples.
The dilemma over “greater efficiency or greater competition” is particularly obvious when applied to the technology sector. The internet economy increases in value in line with the extent to which coverage and users increase. As a result, having established themselves on a particular market, those operating in this field then try to dominate it, whilst still continuing to innovate. In a static, simplified analysis of the situation therefore, market concentration might well benefit consumers even though they have less choice, but there is a risk that “the winner takes all”. Encouraging competition remains, therefore, the objective to strive for even in times of crisis. In Europe, the idea that the best approach to anti-trust issues should be that of “variable geometry – which provides greater flexibility when conditions are unfavorable – has not met with approval. Competition needs to be considered as a resource for growth and widespread technological innovation, and that does not necessarily imply that prices will drop. Innovation should be seen as having such significant value that the risk of the power of the anti-trust authorities being used to excess is one that must be limited.
Italy is also showing signs of a better competitive attitude in terms of the regulations introduced and the activities of its anti-trust authority. Competition and anti-trust are resources that provide a balance between democracy, the markets and social cohesion. All too often, as can be seen in the difficulties in achieving liberalization, competition is deemed, within the institutional debate, to be a problem and not a solution. Without competition there is no social mobility and crony capitalism, based on privilege rather than merit continues. It means that younger generations will inherit what has been described as “a Republic based on income”, referring not only to income derived from property and investments but also that earned in various professions – and the inherent implication is that such income has not be earned through personal merit, but rather through family ties or favoritism. Another legacy passed down to the generations that will follow is a public debt that has, to some extent, been generated thanks to limited competition. Public companies owned by Italy’s regions and local institutions have in fact created a closure and degeneration of the free market in a “morganatic” relationship between public administrations and their in-house providers, an issue that has also been criticized by the governmental spending review. If there is no competition there is no reason to recognize merit. Competition pushes every business to reward its most capable staff and select the best candidates for any jobs.
It has been written that “a true market economy is inevitably meritocratic. It is for companies to be competitive whilst merit is the preserve of individuals. Together they provide the equation that lies at the basis of a market economy and can also generate growth”[1].