Gold Standard and 1929 Crisis
What is Gold Standard and how does it works? The gold standard is a monetary system where a country's currency or paper money has a value directly linked to gold. With the gold standard, countries agreed to convert paper money into a fixed amount of gold. A country that uses the gold standard sets a fixed price for gold, buys and sells gold at that price. That fixed price is used to determine the value of the currency. What are the advantages and disadvantages of Gold standard? The advantages of the gold standard are that (a) It limits the power of governments or banks to cause price inflation by excessive issue of paper currency, although there is evidence that even before World War I monetary authorities did not contract the supply of money when the country incurred a gold outflow, and (b) It creates certainty in international trade by providing a fixed pattern of exchange rates. The disadvantages are that (a) It may not provide sufficient flexibility in the supply of money, because the supply of newly mined gold is not closely related to the growing needs of the world economy for a commensurate supply of money (b) A country may not be able to isolate its economy from depression or inflation in the rest of the world (c) The process of adjustment for a country with a payments deficit can be long and painful whenever an increase in unemployment or a decline in the rate of economic expansion occurs. Why did Britain go off the gold standard in 1918? As in the case of other wars, governments suspended the gold standard during World War I, to increase the money supply and pay for the war. Therefore, as in the case of all post-war eras, many countries faced much higher inflation rates at the end of World War I. Britain was one country that went back to its pre–World War I parity, even though the post-war price level was higher than the pre-war price level. The British government made this decision to maintain its credibility as the world’s superpower. However, maintaining the unrealistic pre-war parity meant that the British pound was overvalued. To avoid further problems with the gold parity, Britain implemented a monetary policy of higher interest rates (or lower quantity of money, essentially a contractionary monetary policy), which led to a weak output performance and unemployment in the years following the end of World War I. Why did Britain again revert to gold standard around 1925? Britain returned to gold in 1925 and by 1927, the vast majority of trading nations had joined the system, which was, in effect, a global fixed exchange rate system. In Britain, the conventional wisdom after the First World War was that a return to gold would provide stability and prosperity. The Cunliffe Committee, which was established to make recommendation for the development of the economy, reported in 1918 "it is imperative that after the war, the conditions necessary for the maintenance of an effective gold standard should be restored without delay." The commitment of the Government to return to gold, combined with relatively high interest rates to facilitate the return, caused the sterling exchange rate to appreciate. In April 1925, the Chancellor of Exchequer, Winston Churchill, restored the sterling to the gold standard at its pre-war exchange rate of $4.86 Why did Britain again go off the gold standard in the September of 1931? In 1929, the world entered a global recession, there was even less demand for British goods abroad, and so it is not surprising that the unemployment rate in Britain towards the end of the 1920 has skyrocketed to about 20%. To add to these problems in 1931 there were worries that a British bank was going to go insolvent. Because of this a lot of foreigners who had money sitting in British banks began to redeem their British pounds for gold and move the gold outside the country. This began depleting the central bank’s gold reserves and they were faced with the option of going off the gold standard or raising interest rates to try to stem the flow of gold to outside of Britain. Raising interest rates even more would have caused the unemployment rate that was already 20% to skyrocket even more and so it’s not surprising that by September 1931 Britain went off the gold standard.” What this meant is that the British pound became less valuable compared to gold, which we can see in the green graph. We also see the deflation or the decreasing prices in Britain stop after they went off the gold standard. Also, because the British pound was now worth less that meant that British exports we are now cheaper to the rest of the world and so after Britain went off the gold standard unemployment started declining.
Sachin Jagtap
Competition Law and Indian Cement industry
Introduction The cement industry is a vital part of the Indian economy, employing millions of people directly or indirectly. The Competition Commission of India ("CCI") passed orders adjudicating allegations of anti-competitive agreements and abuse of dominance amongst the cement manufacturers under the Competition Act, 2002 (the "Act") and imposed a penalty of more than INR 60 billion (USD 1.1 billion). This term paper aims to critically analyse two CCI orders of August 31, 2016, namely: (i) Builders Association of India vs. Cement Manufacturers Association & Ors. ("BAI case") and (ii) In Re: Alleged Cartelization by Cement Manufacturers ("Cement case"). It attempts to highlight the impact of these landmark orders on the cement industry and Indian competition law. 1. Facts 1.1 BAI case: An information was filed under S. 19(1)(a)3 of the Act by the Builder's Association of India (the "Informant") against Cement Manufacturers Association ("CMA") and 11 cement manufacturing companies4, for alleged violation of S. 3 (anti-competitive agreement) and S. 4 (abuse of dominant position) of the Act. On June 20, 2012, the CCI found the parties in contravention of S. 3(3)(a) and S. 3(3)(b)5 read with S. 3(1)6 and imposed monetary penalty along with directions to cease and desist from indulging in any anticompetitive activity. It further prohibited CMA to engage and associate itself from collecting and circulating information about wholesale and retail prices and details on production and dispatches of cement companies to its members. 1.2 Cement case: This case was received as a transfer from the office of the erstwhile Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission under S. 66(6) of the Act.7 In the instant case, MRTP Commission had taken suo moto cognizance and initiated investigations based on the press reports published regarding the increase in the cement prices.8 Since the allegations and parties were similar to the BAI case, except Shree Cement Limited (respondents in BAI case and Shree Cement Limited are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Respondents"), simultaneous investigations were conducted and the report was filed on May 31, 2011. As findings and penalty for violation of S. 3(a) and S. 3(b) read with S. 3(1) had been imposed in CCI's order in BAI case, CCI limited this case for Shree Cement Limited and observed that, it had violated the above stated provisions of the Act and consequently imposed a penalty of INR 3 billion (USD 59 million). 1.3 COMPAT Order: Aggrieved by CCI's orders, the Respondents appealed before the Competition Appellate Tribunal ("COMPAT"), on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. One of the questions that rose was, whether CCI's Chairperson who did not participate in the hearing of arguments of the Respondents could become a party to the final order dated June 20, 2012. The Respondents also raised objections on the grounds of unfair hearing, bias and pre-determined mindset. COMPAT noted that thorough consideration was not given to the report of the Director General ("DG"), parties' submissions and interlocutory orders.9 COMPAT observed that procedural defect in nature of non-observance of principles of natural justice cannot be cured in appeal, because if natural justice is violated in the first stage, the same cannot be given as true right in an appeal. No party can be compelled to satisfy an unjust trial. Accordingly, the COMPAT set aside the impugned orders and remitted the matter to the CCI for fresh adjudication of the issues relating to the alleged violation of S. 3(3)(a) and S. 3(3)(b) read with S. 3(1) of the Act, in accordance with law. 2. Issues and Arguments 2.1 CCI framed 2 questions for determination; whether alleged conduct of the Respondents was an (i) anti-competitive agreement under S. 3 and (ii) amounted to abuse of dominance under S.4 of the Act. Informant had alleged that Respondents were engaged in cartelization by limiting and restricting production and supply of cement and collusive price fixing through price parallelism.10 It was argued that they purposefully did not make maximum utilization of installed production capacity, resulting in artificial scarcity, restricted supply, higher cement prices and abnormal profits. It was submitted that respondents had divided Indian market into 5 zones, based on their operations and increased price without any direct nexus with the varied input costs and production value incurred at different regions. These activities have triggered an adverse affect on the competition in the real estate sector and affected consumer interests at large. Regarding the abuse of dominance, it was submitted that the cement manufacturing companies had a dominant position by collectively holding 57.23% market share in India, which they abused to arbitrarily increase cement prices. 2.2 Abuse of Dominance: On this point the CCI observed that cement market was characterized by several players where no single firm or group was in a position to operate independent of competitive forces or affect its competitors or consumers in its favor. Further, since the Act did not provide for concept of collective dominance, the Respondents could not collectively be considered to hold a dominant position. Hence, no investigation into abuse was required. 2.3 Anti-Competitive Agreement: With respect to S.3, the Respondents questioned the legality of the manner in which the DG conducted the investigations and the economic soundness of the evidence relied upon. It was contended by the cement manufacturing companies that: There was no direct evidence to showcase existence of a cartel between the Respondents and mere circumstantial evidence falls far from sufficient. Price parallelism per se cannot justify cartelization, unless adverse affect on the competition is established. Mere price correlation, dispatch parallelism and generalized under utilization of capacity to cost benchmark is inadequate to analyze concerted action for cartelization. Further CMA contended that, collection of information about prices and production was under the instructions from Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion which was not confidential information, but available in the public domain and also widely published. 3. CCI's Decision on Anti-Competitive Agreement Relying on statistical information on price, production, supply in cement industry, minutes and reports of CMA, facility utilization reports, party testimonies, the CCI held that the Respondents operated in a cartel to cause appreciable adverse effect in competition in cement industry for May 2009 to March 2011. CCI observed that: S. 2(b) which defines "agreement" (any arrangement or understanding or action in concert, whether or not the same is in formal or in writing or intended to be enforceable by legal proceedings), is wide and will include tacit agreement. In cartelization, parties are cautious to avoid explicit and direct evidence such as minutes, paper trails, call records, inevitably mandating an inference to be based on circumstantial evidence taken as a whole and economic index. CCI relied on Dyestuff's case,11 where European Court of Justice observed that, whether there was a concerted action can only be correctly determined if the evidence considered as a whole and not in isolation, bearing in mind the peculiar feature of the market in question. It further noted that given the clandestine nature of cartels, circumstantial evidence is of no less value than direct evidence to prove cartelization. CMA, through its meetings, and reports provided a platform for sharing of price, production, supply related information for sharing between the cement manufacturing companies. CCI relied on the T-mobile case12 where European Court of Justice had held that, in an oligopolistic market13 (like cement industry) the exchange of such information that increases the predictability of market operations between competitors leads to restricted scope for competition. Where there is strong price correlation between involved parties, a positive inference is drawn towards price parallelism indicating concerted action. Cement industry being seasonal, homogenic market is subject to volatile prices, higher variable costs and is susceptible to parallel price pattern. However, CCI noted that even though price parallelism is not conclusive evidence, the same in conjunct with other "plus factors", such as easy access to competition information, product and dispatch parallelism, and capacity underutilization will suffice to prove cartel. Cement manufacturing companies had deliberately reduced their production and produced much less than the installed capacity to create an artificial scarcity and raise the prices of cements in order to earn abnormal profits. Based on this, CCI upheld that the Respondents were in breach of S. 3(3)(a) and S. 3(3)(b) read with S. 3(1) of the Act. This, in effect, means the Respondents have to deposit the specific penalty imposed on each of them. The figure can be computed as a percentage of the turnover or net profits, whichever is higher. CCI computed it on the basis of net profits over a defined period for each cement manufacturer. Additionally, CCI also imposed a penalty of 10% of total receipts over a two-year period. The penalty is payable within 60 days of receipt of the order. Analysis In case of S. 3(3) agreements, once it is established that concerted action exists, it will be presumed that the agreement has an appreciable adverse effect on competition within India. The onus to disprove this presumption lies upon the alleged parties. In the light of this, it is pertinent for companies to maintain accurate price, produce, supply, market feedback and economic strategy. Further, trade associations should have a protocol where they not only work in promoting the interests of their members and the industry they serve, but also for enhancing fair competition. They should be sensitive to the discussions and delineate lines between facilitating competition and anti-competition. Further, as noted by COMPAT, much of the appellate litigation would be obviated if CCI devise a just and fair procedure for conducting investigation and inquiry and passing orders. Thus, it is important that CCI formulate (specifically in oligopolistic markets like petrol, steel, automobiles etc.) regulations for conducting investigations and admitting evidence. Conclusion These two cases implemented the "parallelism plus" approach adopted by the US and European Courts which requires, showing the existence of "plus factors" beyond merely the firm's parallel behaviour, in order to establish the existence of a cartel. Competition authorities across the globe are persuading whistle-blowers in approaching them to give information about companies coming together and forming a cartel. The Act provides for leniency provisions14 where the party seeking the same can avail concessions by way of cooperating in an inquiry. Awareness of this can go a long way in detecting and cracking the presence of cartels.