IPcentral Weblog
  The DACA Blog

Friday, May 27, 2005

The Competition and Industrial Policy Paradox
(previous | next)

I agree with Patrick on the encouraging words of Chairman Martin in his talk with Tech Daily's Drew Clark. The Chairman has his priorities exactly right in noting that market competition enhances consumer welfare, and that government's role is to set rules within which market competition can thrive. The Coasian translation of this point would have the government define property rights and enforce private bargains -- and Coase would have it that this would predominately benefit consumers over state superintendence of bargains and manipulation of property rights.

The Chairman's challenge is that he presides over an agency where the Coasian enterprise is quite foreign (excepting the counsel of Messrs. Atkinson and Barnkov). This is not because of some anti-market malevolence within the agency, but rather becuase of an institutional history, structure and mission aimed at industrial policy -- the manipulation or preclusion of market outcomes so that some other thought-to-be beneficial social end can be achieved. In telecommunications, we call that end "universal service;" in broadcasting, we call it "diversity;" in spectrum, we call it "small business set asides." If you look at questions of spectrum, merger conditioning, unbundling, intercarrier compensation, and universal service, they all nearly involve calls to reorient or define the property rights to achieve a given argued-for beneficent outcome.

Accordingly, applying the competition catechism at an agency like the FCC is not an easy feat by any means. Take for instance the Chairman's properly held priority for broadband deployment. The temptations to get off the market path he counsels are many. "Special" incentives, which at an extreme would involve granting an exclusive franchise like we de facto did to AT&T at the beginning of the last century, are an always present political temptation so the agency can look like it is "doing something." By contrast, the market path seems more boring, at least from the agency's perspective. Defining property rights and allowing private capital and agreements to be the driver of broadband deployment do not make for dramatic sweeping programs; nor instantaneous political rewards. Nevertheless, history shows that these market-making institutional moves generate more dynamism and consumer benefits than the industrial policy favoritism alternative (they also generate less rentseeking, to the extent the agency is believed in its constancy to market beliefs).

The Chairman's political skills are beyond compare, and his policy instincts in the right place. It will be difficult given the legal inadequacy of the Act, the perverse incentive structure that tends toward industrial policy reward-giving, and the political-driven as opposed to policy-driven outcomes that are the agnecy's history. Nevertheless -- if he is joined by colleagues that share his vision -- he does have a chance at a historic chairmanship.

posted by Ray Gifford @ 1:26 PM | The FCC

Share |

Link to this Entry | Printer-Friendly

Post a Comment:

Blog Main
RSS Feed  
Recent Posts
  EFF-PFF Amicus Brief in Schwarzenegger v. EMA Supreme Court Videogame Violence Case
New OECD Study Finds That Improved IPR Protections Benefit Developing Countries
Hubris, Cowardice, File-sharing, and TechDirt
iPhones, DRM, and Doom-Mongers
"Rogue Archivist" Carl Malamud On How to Fix Gov2.0
Coping with Information Overload: Thoughts on Hamlet's BlackBerry by William Powers
How Many Times Has Michael "Dr. Doom" Copps Forecast an Internet Apocalypse?
Google / Verizon Proposal May Be Important Compromise, But Regulatory Trajectory Concerns Many
Two Schools of Internet Pessimism
GAO: Wireless Prices Plummeting; Public Knowledge: We Must Regulate!
Archives by Month
  September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
  - (see all)
Archives by Topic
  - A La Carte
- Add category
- Advertising & Marketing
- Antitrust & Competition Policy
- Appleplectics
- Books & Book Reviews
- Broadband
- Cable
- Campaign Finance Law
- Capitalism
- Capitol Hill
- China
- Commons
- Communications
- Copyright
- Cutting the Video Cord
- Cyber-Security
- Digital Americas
- Digital Europe
- Digital Europe 2006
- Digital TV
- E-commerce
- e-Government & Transparency
- Economics
- Education
- Electricity
- Energy
- Events
- Exaflood
- Free Speech
- Gambling
- General
- Generic Rant
- Global Innovation
- Googlephobia
- Googlephobia
- Human Capital
- Innovation
- Intermediary Deputization & Section 230
- Internet
- Internet Governance
- Internet TV
- Interoperability
- IP
- Local Franchising
- Mass Media
- Media Regulation
- Monetary Policy
- Municipal Ownership
- Net Neutrality
- Neutrality
- Non-PFF Podcasts
- Ongoing Series
- Online Safety & Parental Controls
- Open Source
- PFF Podcasts
- Philosophy / Cyber-Libertarianism
- Privacy
- Privacy Solutions
- Regulation
- Search
- Security
- Software
- Space
- Spectrum
- Sports
- State Policy
- Supreme Court
- Taxes
- The FCC
- The FTC
- The News Frontier
- Think Tanks
- Trade
- Trademark
- Universal Service
- Video Games & Virtual Worlds
- VoIP
- What We're Reading
- Wireless
- Wireline
Archives by Author
PFF Blogosphere Archives
We welcome comments by email - look for a link to the author's email address in the byline of each post. Please let us know if we may publish your remarks.

The Progress & Freedom Foundation