Close Menu
TechCentralTechCentral

    Subscribe to the newsletter

    Get the best South African technology news and analysis delivered to your e-mail inbox every morning.

    Facebook X (Twitter) YouTube LinkedIn
    WhatsApp Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn YouTube
    TechCentralTechCentral
    • News

      Blue Label Telecoms to change its name as restructuring gathers pace

      11 July 2025

      Get your ID delivered like pizza – home affairs’ latest digital shake-up

      11 July 2025

      EFF vows to stop Starlink from launching in South Africa

      11 July 2025

      Apple plans product blitz to reignite growth

      11 July 2025

      Nissan doubles down on South Africa despite plant uncertainty

      11 July 2025
    • World

      Grok 4 arrives with bold claims and fresh controversy

      10 July 2025

      Bitcoin pushes higher into record territory

      10 July 2025

      Cupertino vs Brussels: Apple challenges Big Tech crackdown

      7 July 2025

      Grammarly acquires e-mail start-up Superhuman

      1 July 2025

      Apple considers ditching its own AI in Siri overhaul

      1 July 2025
    • In-depth

      Siemens is battling Big Tech for AI supremacy in factories

      24 June 2025

      The algorithm will sing now: why musicians should be worried about AI

      20 June 2025

      Meta bets $72-billion on AI – and investors love it

      17 June 2025

      MultiChoice may unbundle SuperSport from DStv

      12 June 2025

      Grok promised bias-free chat. Then came the edits

      2 June 2025
    • TCS

      TCS+ | MVNX on the opportunities in South Africa’s booming MVNO market

      11 July 2025

      TCS | Connecting Saffas – Renier Lombard on The Lekker Network

      7 July 2025

      TechCentral Nexus S0E4: Takealot’s big Post Office jobs plan

      4 July 2025

      TCS | Tech, townships and tenacity: Spar’s plan to win with Spar2U

      3 July 2025

      TCS+ | First Distribution on the latest and greatest cloud technologies

      27 June 2025
    • Opinion

      In defence of equity alternatives for BEE

      30 June 2025

      E-commerce in ICT distribution: enabler or disruptor?

      30 June 2025

      South Africa pioneered drone laws a decade ago – now it must catch up

      17 June 2025

      AI and the future of ICT distribution

      16 June 2025

      Singapore soared – why can’t we? Lessons South Africa refuses to learn

      13 June 2025
    • Company Hubs
      • Africa Data Centres
      • AfriGIS
      • Altron Digital Business
      • Altron Document Solutions
      • Altron Group
      • Arctic Wolf
      • AvertITD
      • Braintree
      • CallMiner
      • CambriLearn
      • CYBER1 Solutions
      • Digicloud Africa
      • Digimune
      • Domains.co.za
      • ESET
      • Euphoria Telecom
      • Incredible Business
      • iONLINE
      • Iris Network Systems
      • LSD Open
      • NEC XON
      • Network Platforms
      • Next DLP
      • Ovations
      • Paracon
      • Paratus
      • Q-KON
      • SevenC
      • SkyWire
      • Solid8 Technologies
      • Telit Cinterion
      • Tenable
      • Vertiv
      • Videri Digital
      • Wipro
      • Workday
    • Sections
      • AI and machine learning
      • Banking
      • Broadcasting and Media
      • Cloud services
      • Contact centres and CX
      • Cryptocurrencies
      • Education and skills
      • Electronics and hardware
      • Energy and sustainability
      • Enterprise software
      • Fintech
      • Information security
      • Internet and connectivity
      • Internet of Things
      • Investment
      • IT services
      • Lifestyle
      • Motoring
      • Public sector
      • Retail and e-commerce
      • Science
      • SMEs and start-ups
      • Social media
      • Talent and leadership
      • Telecoms
    • Events
    • Advertise
    TechCentralTechCentral
    Home » In-depth » The trouble with SA’s competition law

    The trouble with SA’s competition law

    By The Conversation25 September 2015
    Twitter LinkedIn Facebook WhatsApp Email Telegram Copy Link
    News Alerts
    WhatsApp

    regulation-640

    Changes to South Africa’s competition law have widened the scope for the country’s antitrust bodies to punish anticompetitive behaviour. But implementing the changes, which were passed into law five years ago, is proving to be fraught with difficulty.

    The Competition Amendment Act gives the Competition Commission powers to investigate complex monopoly conduct in a market. Under certain conditions, it allows the Competition Tribunal, which adjudicates competition issues referred to it by the commission, to prohibit such behaviour. Complex monopoly is where firms tacitly act as if they are a single firm in setting prices in the market.

    The provision that gives these powers, section 10A, has not yet been enforced more than five years since the amendments were promulgated. It is one of a number of amendments that have not come into operation. It is not clear what is causing the delay. One possible explanation is that government is aware that some of the sections may be unconstitutional. It may be trying to avoid unintended consequences or difficulties in the operation and credibility of the amendments.

    If section 10A comes into effect, it will mark a significant change in the country’s competition law. It extends the liability for prohibited anticompetitive practices by firms beyond an agreement or concerted practice to include tacit coordination in certain concentrated market structures and circumstances.

    One consequence of this would be increased scrutiny of pricing practices in oligopolistic markets. These are markets where only a few firms compete. The banking sector in South Africa is one example.

    It is well known that oligopolists are interdependent in their pricing decisions. The prices they charge are based partly on their competitors’ anticipated responses.

    Recognition of their common interest often leads to less vigorous price competition and prices that are elevated substantially above competitive levels. Examples of these kinds of pricing practices are:

    • Price leadership, where a firm sets the price and its competitors follow
    • Meeting competition clauses, such as matching competitors’ prices
    • Uniform delivered pricing policies
    • Facilitating practices such as exchanges of price information and price signalling

    Another pricing policy that will be affected by the amendment is the use of focal points to set and adjust prices. A focal point price is a coordinated price set by two or more sellers, without communication, that can generate excessive profit way above cost and risk consideration.

    The price coordination arises from a convergence of expectations or mutual understanding of what the appropriate market price should be and it is chosen for its salience, prominence or uniqueness in the market.

    Examples of focal point prices are price ceilings such as credit card and loan interest rates or fees charged at maximum rates set by legislation or regulation.

    Another example is price floors such as minimum wages. Or the conversion of South African banks’ prime overdraft rate fixed at 3,5 percentage points above the South African Reserve Bank’s repo rate.

    If this amendment comes into effect, it will bring South African legislation closer to the economic approach of punishing collusive conduct advocated by antitrust scholars such as Richard Posner and Louis Kaplow. According to this approach, liability is determined by its effects or market outcomes, whether explicit or tacit, rather than being based on proof of the existence of an agreement.

    Economists argue that the decision by a rational, profit-seeking firm to coordinate its activities with its competitors, whether expressly or tacitly, is essentially the same. The firm decides by balancing the benefits from colluding against the costs, including the risk of punishment by competition authorities.

    The scope is too wide
    The widening of the scope of collusive practices to include ”conscious parallel conduct” is therefore soundly based on economic theory and may act as a deterrent to firms charging excessive prices in highly concentrated markets. But implementing section 10Aa would trigger a number of problems and difficulties.

    The broad scope of the commission’s investigative mandate under the amendment is almost equivalent to a market inquiry. The difference is that the investigation is directed against the conduct of specific firms, rather than a market as a whole. If the commission succeeded in establishing complex monopoly conduct, the firms involved could be held accountable for this conduct.

    The overly broad scope of the provision means that it is likely to catch conduct that in reality is not harmful to economic welfare, the so-called false negatives. This is particularly the case when it comes to focal point pricing.

    Focal point prices in many market circumstances can result in prices being set at elevated levels in comparison with prices that are independently determined by firms. As such, these are likely to be under scrutiny when the amendment comes into effect.

    The amendment also provides scope for the tribunal to impose structural remedies. The tribunal is empowered to address this conduct by making an order that deals with the effect of the complex monopoly conduct on the market. Should it impose behavioural remedies to reduce prices, it would be acting as a price regulator. This is a function it is ill-suited to perform.

    Consequently, if section 10A comes into effect, it may raise more concerns than it is likely to solve. The concerns include uncertainty and potentially harmful economic effects in oligopolistic industries, such as the banking industry.The Conversation

    • This article is based on a paper, “Focal point pricing: A challenge to the successful implementation of section 10A (introduced by the Competition Amendment Act)”, by the authors and Jessica Staples, an attorney of the high court of South Africa
    • Mike Holland is director of research at PriceMetrics and lecturer at the Gordon Institute of Business Science, while Jannie Rossouw is head of the School of Economic & Business Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand
    • This article was originally published on The Conversation


    Competition Commission competition tribunal Jannie Rossouw Mike Holland
    Subscribe to TechCentral Subscribe to TechCentral
    Share. Facebook Twitter LinkedIn WhatsApp Telegram Email Copy Link
    Previous ArticleANC warns SABC over pay hikes
    Next Article Farewell, CSI – the show that made forensics fun

    Related Posts

    Vodacom, Maziv deal now looks likely after CompCom U-turn

    8 July 2025

    Vodacom’s influence on Maziv too strong to ignore: tribunal

    27 June 2025

    Finally! Tribunal unpacks why it blocked Vodacom’s Vumatel deal

    24 June 2025
    Company News

    $125-trillion traded: Binance redefines global finance in just eight years

    11 July 2025

    NEC XON welcomes HPE acquisition of Juniper Networks

    11 July 2025

    LTE Cat 1 vs Cat 1 bis – what’s the difference?

    11 July 2025
    Opinion

    In defence of equity alternatives for BEE

    30 June 2025

    E-commerce in ICT distribution: enabler or disruptor?

    30 June 2025

    South Africa pioneered drone laws a decade ago – now it must catch up

    17 June 2025

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the best South African technology news and analysis delivered to your e-mail inbox every morning.

    © 2009 - 2025 NewsCentral Media

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.