Home > All journals > World Competition > 43(2) >
$25.00 - Rental (PDF) *
$49.00 - Article (PDF) *
Rhea Reddy Lokesh
World Competition
Volume 43, Issue 2 (2020) pp. 283 – 300
https://doi.org/10.54648/woco2020014
Abstract
The objective behind imposing price controls on essential medicines is to ensure that the masses have access to these essential goods and services without prejudice. However, the prices of these medicines have significantly increased under price controls, defeating the purpose of the ceilings’ implementation. In this article, the author examines the reasons behind these price increases. In particular, the article examines whether price ceilings facilitate collusion in the pharmaceutical market of India. The scope of examination considers the effect of the ceiling on prices both before and after it was implemented. This is important because prices become significantly higher in a cartelized market, thereby preventing the masses from being able to access essential, life-saving medicines.
After examining studies of individual drugs and common market tendencies, the author concluded that price ceilings do facilitate anti-competitive practices. This is due to the marketbased price ceilings providing a focal point for tacit collusion. This is especially true in pharmaceutical markets with market-based price ceilings due to the presence of strong intermediary association and monitoring, evidence of communication, and underutilization of capacity. Similar collusive behaviour has been observed in markets across China, the United States, and the United Kingdom. At the end of the article, suggestions to mitigate the effects of price ceilings and prevent the consumers from being harmed further have been enumerated.
Keywords
Tacit Collusion, Signalling, Cartelization, Pharmaceutical, India, Focal Point, Price Control, Ceiling, Market-based, Price-fixing
Extract
The theoretical underpinnings of financial regulation have led to an obsessive quest for transparency. This has not only led to a gradual increase in disclosure requirements, but has also generated some other unintended consequences, such as structural conflicts of interests, which affect the modes of information (and opinion) production of influential actors. Credit rating agencies, for example, have also in their own right raised new regulatory concerns. Within this wider context, this article explores whether regulatory initiatives to stringently discipline credit rating agencies’ activities (particularly with a view to issuing sovereign ratings), or other initiatives which reflect an increasing willingness to control speech in financial markets (for instance those targeting activist shareholder strategies), are in line with relevant principles guaranteeing the freedom of expression which have seemingly remained a blind spot of financial regulators.