Why the CMA is wrong in its proposals for reform and what should be done instead

(by Bruce Lyons) The Chairman of the CMA, Lord Tyrie, has written a 44-page letter (including annex) to the Secretary of State for Business, Greg Clark, setting out a long list of legislative proposals.[1] Two motivations are given: “First, the growth of new and rapidly-emerging forms of consumer detriment, caused in part by the increasing digitalisation of the economy, requires more rapid intervention, and probably new types of intervention… Second, there are increasing signs that the public doubt whether markets work for their benefit.” I agree with the spirit of these points and that they require action. However, I disagree with some of the CMA’s key proposals. Lord Tyrie appears particularly frustrated with the lengthy appeals system which limits his ability to act firmly and swiftly. Unfortunately, the overall package of proposals would reverse hard-won progress in competition policy over the last 20 years and lead to a paternalistic, arbitrary and unrestrained Consumer Interest Authority. In this blog, I briefly explain some of my concerns. I then set out two alternative proposals that would more directly and appropriately address public concerns over unfair pricing and result in better decisions without prolonged appeals.

The deterrent effect of competition authorities’ work

(by Mike Walker^) In his post last month, Steve Davies bemoaned the lack of evidence on the magnitude of harm deterred by the activities of the Competition Agencies. He presented some estimates from research in CCP on cartel deterrence, concluding most strikingly: “On the most conservative of our estimates, more than half of all potential cartel harm never occurs, because it is deterred. This is very much a lower bound, and the proportion could be as high as 90%.”

An energy price cap could kill competition – here’s a better idea

(by Catherine Waddams) The Conservatives have announced that their manifesto will include a pledge to cap the price of energy bills. This comes just two years after Labour campaigned to freeze household energy prices. The Tories are yet to flesh out the details of their plan, but it has already drawn strong reactions both for and against. The price of energy stirs deep emotions in part because it is a necessity, one which absorbs a much higher proportion[1] of the income of those in poverty and “just about managing” than of richer households.

But there are two other important features:

The dangerously distorted incentives created by the CMA’s performance target

(by Bruce Lyons)[1]  The CMA has recently published its annual report and associated impact assessment.  Its performance management framework commits the CMA “to achieving direct financial benefit to consumers of at least ten times our cost to the taxpayer.” [Annual Report 2015-16, p.66].  Target setting and performance measurement are an important part of performance management.  However, the precise way that the government requires the CMA to justify its funding is dangerously distortionary.

The CMA’s Energy Market Remedies: Boxed into the Wrong Corner?

(By David Deller) In an earlier blog post, I provided an initial reaction to the CMA’s provisional remedies for the UK energy market. This blog post considers the underlying assumptions that appear to have provided the ‘envelope’ for the remedies that the CMA considers suitable and proportionate. I critique the CMA’s reasoning in three core areas: (i) the size of interventions that could be justified by the estimates of harm; (ii) why the headline harm estimates are likely to be overestimates; and (iii) the limited evidence for concluding that smart meters are a panacea to low consumer engagement. After such a lengthy investigation it is disappointing to see such weaknesses in reasoning.