You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 10 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Competition policy is the set of government measures designed to promote competition, prevent the abuse of market power and protect consumer welfare. It is the applied culmination of the whole market-structures course: having seen why monopoly and collusion can harm consumers (high prices, restricted output, deadweight loss, X-inefficiency) and how contestability can sometimes discipline firms without intervention, this lesson asks what the state should actually do about market power. In the UK the principal authority is the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), formed in 2014 from the merger of the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission. The lesson sets out the CMA's main tools — merger control, the prohibition of anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance, and market investigations — then turns to the regulation of natural monopolies (where competition is impossible), the RPI − X price cap and its rationale, privatisation and deregulation, and finally a careful evaluation of how effective competition policy really is. Throughout, the analytical anchor is welfare economics: the aim is to push markets towards the competitive outcome (P=MC) and to stop firms converting market power into extracted consumer surplus.
AQA A-Level Economics (7136) — this lesson sits within 4.1.5 The market mechanism, market failure and government intervention in markets: competition policy, the regulation of monopoly and natural monopoly, price regulation, privatisation, deregulation and the promotion of competition. It draws together monopoly, oligopoly, price discrimination and contestability.
Assessment Objectives developed here:
| AO | Skill | In this lesson |
|---|---|---|
| AO1 | Knowledge | Define competition policy, the CMA's functions, RPI − X, privatisation, deregulation, regulatory capture |
| AO2 | Application | Apply tools to named cases (mergers, regulated utilities) |
| AO3 | Analysis | Chain market power → consumer harm → the specific policy remedy and its intended effect |
| AO4 | Evaluation | Judge the effectiveness of policy given information gaps, regulatory capture, time lags and government failure |
Competition policy exists because unregulated markets with significant market power can produce outcomes that reduce economic welfare:
| Problem | Explanation | Policy response |
|---|---|---|
| Monopoly power | A dominant firm may restrict output, raise price above MC and earn supernormal profit, creating deadweight loss | Merger control; abuse-of-dominance rules |
| Collusion | Firms may fix prices, share markets or restrict output — replicating monopoly harm | Anti-cartel enforcement and leniency |
| Anti-competitive conduct | Predatory pricing, exclusive dealing or tying that forecloses rivals | Conduct investigations |
| Consumer exploitation | Misleading practices, excessive prices, weak competition on essentials | Consumer-protection regulation; market investigations |
Exam Tip: Anchor every policy argument in welfare economics. The deeper aim is to move the market towards P=MC (allocative efficiency), towards minimum average cost (productive efficiency), and to curb the X-inefficiency and supernormal profit that unchallenged market power permits. A policy answer that never mentions efficiency or deadweight loss has lost its analytical spine.
The CMA is the UK's principal competition and consumer-protection authority. Its main functions are merger control, the two statutory prohibitions, and market studies.
The CMA reviews mergers and acquisitions that could substantially lessen competition (an "SLC").
| Stage | Process | Possible outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Phase 1 | Initial screen — does the deal raise competition concerns? | Clear; clear with undertakings; or refer to Phase 2 |
| Phase 2 | In-depth investigation by an independent panel | Clear; clear with remedies; or block |
Jurisdiction is triggered broadly by a turnover test (the target's UK turnover exceeding a statutory threshold) or a share-of-supply test (the merged firm supplying or acquiring at least a quarter of a particular good or service in the UK). The economic question is always whether the merger substantially lessens competition — typically by removing a close competitor and so enabling higher prices, lower quality or reduced choice, especially in local markets where the merging firms were each other's nearest rivals.
| Illustrative case | Outcome | Reasoning |
|---|---|---|
| A major supermarket merger | Blocked | Combining two of the largest grocers would have removed a close competitor and risked higher prices and worse choice, particularly in local areas |
| A large technology / gaming acquisition | Cleared only after remedies | Concerns about emerging cloud-gaming markets were addressed by licensing/behavioural commitments before clearance |
| A mobile-network merger (four-to-three) | Cleared with conditions | Reducing the number of networks raised concerns; conditions were imposed to protect competition and consumers |
Exam Tip: Merger cases are excellent applied evidence, but describe them in economic terms — "removed a close competitor, enabling higher prices in local markets" — rather than reciting dates and parties. Treat specifics as illustrative; the examinable point is the SLC test and the use of remedies (behavioural or structural) as an alternative to an outright block.
UK law prohibits agreements between firms whose object or effect is to prevent, restrict or distort competition:
| Prohibited conduct | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Price-fixing | Agreeing to set prices at a common level |
| Market sharing | Carving up the market by geography or customer type |
| Output restriction | Agreeing to limit production to hold prices up |
| Bid-rigging | Coordinating tenders in procurement |
| Information sharing | Exchanging commercially sensitive data (e.g. future pricing) that softens competition |
Enforcement carries heavy fines (a substantial percentage of worldwide turnover), potential criminal liability and imprisonment for individuals in hard-core cartels, and director disqualification. Crucially, a leniency programme offers the first cartel member to confess immunity from fines — deliberately weaponising the prisoner's dilemma from the oligopoly lesson, since each member fears a rival will inform first and rationally races to confess.
A firm that is dominant (a high market share — conventionally assessed from around 40% upwards, alongside barriers to entry and the absence of countervailing buyer power) must not abuse that position:
| Type of abuse | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Excessive pricing | Charging far above cost without justification — most troubling for essential goods |
| Predatory pricing | Pricing below cost to drive out a rival, intending to raise prices afterwards |
| Exclusive dealing | Tying customers to buy only from the dominant firm |
| Tying and bundling | Forcing the purchase of a secondary product with the main one |
| Refusal to supply | Denying rivals access to an essential input or facility (the "essential facilities" idea) |
Note the link to earlier lessons: predatory pricing is the post-entry, below-cost attack distinguished from limit pricing in the contestable-markets lesson, and excessive pricing is market power converted into consumer harm — the monopoly critique made actionable.
Even without a specific complaint, the CMA can study a whole market to ask whether competition is working, and impose remedies if it is not. Past studies of energy supply, retail banking and digital advertising have produced remedies ranging from default-tariff price caps and "open banking" data-sharing to an entirely new regulatory regime for the most powerful digital platforms (those with "Strategic Market Status"). Market investigations are the tool for structural or tacit problems that no single illegal agreement explains — for example, weak competition sustained by consumer inertia and high switching costs.
When the CMA finds a problem it must choose a remedy, and the choice between two families is itself examinable. Behavioural remedies change how a firm acts without altering who owns what: requiring it to license intellectual property to rivals, grant access to an essential facility, cap a price, publish information, or stop tying products together. They are less drastic and quicker, but require ongoing monitoring and can be gamed by a firm that complies with the letter while frustrating the spirit. Structural remedies change the shape of the market: blocking a merger outright, or ordering a firm to divest (sell off) part of its business to restore a competitor. They are more decisive and need little policing afterwards, but are blunt, hard to reverse, and risk destroying genuine efficiencies. The general principle is proportionality — use the least intrusive remedy that fixes the competition problem — but the trade-off (a cheap-to-impose but hard-to-police behavioural rule versus a decisive but heavy-handed structural one) is a ready-made evaluation point, and it explains why contested mergers are often cleared with undertakings rather than simply blocked.
The specification lists promoting competition as a distinct policy aim, and it is worth separating from the enforcement tools above. Some measures work by lowering barriers to entry so that markets become more contestable: deregulation and liberalisation (covered below), opening public-sector procurement to smaller firms, simplifying licensing, and mandating interoperability and data portability (as with open banking) so that consumers can switch and rivals can compete on a level field. Others work by strengthening the demand side: requiring clear, comparable information so consumers can shop around, banning practices that exploit inertia (such as rolling customers onto expensive default tariffs), and protecting the switching process itself. A third strand actively nurtures rivals — for example, by ensuring new or smaller firms can obtain access to an incumbent's essential network at fair terms, the logic behind requiring the dominant telecoms network owner to wholesale access to competitors. The common thread is that competition can be promoted as well as protected: rather than only punishing abuse after the fact, policy can reshape the conditions of a market so that competitive pressure arises in the first place — which is exactly the contestability insight from the previous lesson turned into a positive policy programme.
Some industries are natural monopolies: economies of scale are so large relative to demand that a single firm supplies the whole market at lower average cost than several could (think of a water or electricity network — duplicating the pipes or cables would be hugely wasteful). Here competition is neither possible nor desirable, so policy switches from promoting competition to regulating the monopolist to mimic competitive outcomes.
A natural monopoly has a continuously falling long-run average cost over the relevant range (because the huge fixed/sunk network cost is spread over more and more output), so marginal cost lies below average cost throughout. Left unregulated, the firm sets MC=MR at a low output and high price Pm, earning large supernormal profit and creating deadweight loss. A regulator would like to force allocative efficiency by setting P=MC, but at that price the firm cannot cover its (higher) average cost and would make a loss — the natural-monopoly dilemma. In practice regulators often aim for an P=AC "fair return" price Pr, lower than the monopoly price and earning only normal profit, accepting that true marginal-cost pricing would require a subsidy.
| Regulator | Sector | Core tools |
|---|---|---|
| Ofgem | Gas and electricity | Network price controls; retail default-tariff cap; promoting retail competition |
| Ofwat | Water and sewerage | Price controls; service-quality and environmental standards |
| Ofcom | Telecoms and broadcasting | Spectrum; access regulation (forcing the network owner to grant rivals access); media plurality |
| ORR | Railways | Track-access charges; safety; performance monitoring |
The signature UK tool for network monopolies is the RPI − X price cap. The firm may raise prices by inflation (RPI) minus an efficiency factor X set by the regulator, so prices fall in real terms each year by X%, passing expected productivity gains to consumers.
| Element | Meaning |
|---|---|
| RPI | An inflation measure — the firm can pass through general price rises |
| X | A regulator-set efficiency factor — the required annual real price cut |
| Incentive | If the firm cuts costs by more than X%, it keeps the extra profit until the next review — a powerful spur to efficiency |
| Review | X is reset periodically (typically every five years) in light of performance and investment needs |
For example, if RPI is 3% and X is 2%, the firm may raise nominal prices by only about 1%, delivering a real-terms cut.
| Feature | RPI − X (UK) | Rate-of-return (older US model) |
|---|---|---|
| How price is set | A cap set by the regulator | Prices set to earn an allowed return on capital |
| Efficiency incentive | Strong — the firm keeps cost savings between reviews | Weak — savings are clawed back via lower allowed prices |
| Investment incentive | Moderate; depends on how capital spending is treated | Perverse — incentive to over-invest to inflate the asset base (the Averch–Johnson effect) |
| Regulatory burden | Lower — set the cap and step back | Higher — constant monitoring of costs and capital |
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 10 lessons in this course.