Protecting whose welfare? A document analysis of competition regulatory decisions in four jurisdictions across three harmful consumer product industries.

IF 5.9 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Globalization and Health Pub Date : 2024-10-02 DOI:10.1186/s12992-024-01076-2
Benjamin Wood, Chrissa Karouzakis, Katherine Sievert, Sven Gallasch, Gary Sacks
{"title":"Protecting whose welfare? A document analysis of competition regulatory decisions in four jurisdictions across three harmful consumer product industries.","authors":"Benjamin Wood, Chrissa Karouzakis, Katherine Sievert, Sven Gallasch, Gary Sacks","doi":"10.1186/s12992-024-01076-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and methods: </strong>Competition regulation has a strong influence on the relative market power of firms. As such, competition regulation can complement industry-specific measures designed to address harms associated with excessive market power in harmful consumer product industries. This study aimed to examine, through a public health lens, assessments and decisions made by competition authorities in four jurisdictions (Australia, South Africa, the United States (US), and the European Union (EU)) involving three harmful consumer product industries (alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, tobacco). We analysed legal case documents, sourced from online public registers and dating back as far as the online records extended, using a narrative approach. Regulatory decisions and harms described by the authorities were inductively coded, focusing on the affected group(s) (e.g., consumers) and the nature of the harms (e.g., price increases) identified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 359 cases published by competition authorities in Australia (n = 202), South Africa (n = 44), the US (n = 27), and the EU (n = 86). Most cases (n = 239) related to mergers and acquisitions (M&As). Competition authorities in Australia, the US, and the EU were found to make many decisions oriented towards increasing the affordability and accessibility of alcohol beverages, soft drinks, and tobacco products. Such decisions were very often made despite the presence of consumption-reduction public health policies. In comparison, South Africa's competition authorities routinely considered broader issues, including 'Black Economic Empowerment' and potential harms to workers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Many of the competition regulatory decisions assessed likely facilitated the concentration of market power in the industries we explored. Nevertheless, there appears to be potential for competition regulatory frameworks to play a more prominent role in promoting and protecting the public's health through tighter regulation of excessive market power in harmful consumer product industries.</p>","PeriodicalId":12747,"journal":{"name":"Globalization and Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11448300/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Globalization and Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-024-01076-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and methods: Competition regulation has a strong influence on the relative market power of firms. As such, competition regulation can complement industry-specific measures designed to address harms associated with excessive market power in harmful consumer product industries. This study aimed to examine, through a public health lens, assessments and decisions made by competition authorities in four jurisdictions (Australia, South Africa, the United States (US), and the European Union (EU)) involving three harmful consumer product industries (alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, tobacco). We analysed legal case documents, sourced from online public registers and dating back as far as the online records extended, using a narrative approach. Regulatory decisions and harms described by the authorities were inductively coded, focusing on the affected group(s) (e.g., consumers) and the nature of the harms (e.g., price increases) identified.

Results: We identified 359 cases published by competition authorities in Australia (n = 202), South Africa (n = 44), the US (n = 27), and the EU (n = 86). Most cases (n = 239) related to mergers and acquisitions (M&As). Competition authorities in Australia, the US, and the EU were found to make many decisions oriented towards increasing the affordability and accessibility of alcohol beverages, soft drinks, and tobacco products. Such decisions were very often made despite the presence of consumption-reduction public health policies. In comparison, South Africa's competition authorities routinely considered broader issues, including 'Black Economic Empowerment' and potential harms to workers.

Conclusion: Many of the competition regulatory decisions assessed likely facilitated the concentration of market power in the industries we explored. Nevertheless, there appears to be potential for competition regulatory frameworks to play a more prominent role in promoting and protecting the public's health through tighter regulation of excessive market power in harmful consumer product industries.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
保护谁的福利?对四个辖区三个有害消费品行业竞争监管决定的文件分析。
背景和方法:竞争监管对企业的相对市场支配力有很大影响。因此,竞争监管可以补充针对特定行业的措施,以解决有害消费品行业中与过度市场力量相关的危害。本研究旨在通过公共健康视角,考察四个司法管辖区(澳大利亚、南非、美国和欧盟)竞争管理机构对三个有害消费品行业(酒精饮料、软饮料和烟草)的评估和决策。我们采用叙述的方法分析了法律案例文件,这些文件来自在线公共登记簿,可追溯到在线记录所延伸的最远年份。我们对监管机构做出的监管决定和描述的危害进行了归纳编码,重点关注受影响的群体(如消费者)和确定的危害性质(如价格上涨):我们发现了 359 个由澳大利亚(n = 202)、南非(n = 44)、美国(n = 27)和欧盟(n = 86)竞争管理机构发布的案例。大多数案例(n = 239)与并购(M&A)有关。我们发现,澳大利亚、美国和欧盟的竞争管理机构做出了许多旨在提高酒精饮料、软饮料和烟草产品的可负担性和可获得性的决定。尽管存在减少消费的公共卫生政策,但这些决定往往是在这种情况下做出的。相比之下,南非的竞争管理机构通常会考虑更广泛的问题,包括 "黑人经济赋权 "和对工人的潜在伤害:我们所评估的许多竞争监管决定都可能促进了我们所探讨行业的市场力量集中。尽管如此,竞争监管框架似乎仍有潜力通过加强对有害消费品行业过度市场力量的监管,在促进和保护公众健康方面发挥更突出的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Globalization and Health
Globalization and Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
18.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
93
期刊介绍: "Globalization and Health" is a pioneering transdisciplinary journal dedicated to situating public health and well-being within the dynamic forces of global development. The journal is committed to publishing high-quality, original research that explores the impact of globalization processes on global public health. This includes examining how globalization influences health systems and the social, economic, commercial, and political determinants of health. The journal welcomes contributions from various disciplines, including policy, health systems, political economy, international relations, and community perspectives. While single-country studies are accepted, they must emphasize global/globalization mechanisms and their relevance to global-level policy discourse and decision-making.
期刊最新文献
The adoption of international travel measures during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic: a descriptive analysis. Capturing sources of health system legitimacy in fragmented conflict zones under different governance models: a case study of northwest Syria. Protecting whose welfare? A document analysis of competition regulatory decisions in four jurisdictions across three harmful consumer product industries. Assessing the health status of migrants upon arrival in Europe: a systematic review of the adverse impact of migration journeys. How can advocates leverage power to advance comprehensive regulation on ultra-processed foods? learning from advocate experience in Argentina
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1