ABSTRACT
The ‘pure competition’ objective or ideal has already been outlined. However, in practice there are a number of different economic, social and political objectives which may also form part of any particular competition policy. It is often the extent to which these other policies should and do play a role that causes greatest debate among practitioners, competition administrators and academics. Some of these other policies have been termed ‘extra-competition’ policies or ‘noncompetition law proper’ policies and it has often been suggested that competition law should not be concerned with them. However, this argument often comes from those, particularly those academics associated with the Chicago school, who consider that efficiency should be the only criterion of legality, ignoring the politically biased basis to that preference. Also, as this introduction suggests, competition law or policy is not fixed, but is dependent to a great extent upon the particular political and social emphases of the legal system in which it operates. It can therefore be justifiably stated that, in applying the core economic thesis which informs competition law, any set of appropriate principles and policies may play a part in a coherent competition law system. Indeed, it has been recognised that the fundamental rationale for the introduction of a set of competition policies has been to promote the economy of a given country and the well being of both its consumers and its industries generally. The appropriate balance must be sought between industry and the consumer, but this illustrates that the incorporation of any set of extracompetition policy objectives will be to further national interest irrespective of the outcome predicted by economic theory. The following are examples of political objectives which may form part of competition policy.
