Chimera of domestic antitrust: Institute of collective dominance in Russia

The paper reveals the characteristics of competing approaches — Pigouvian and Coasian — to identify the grounds for state regulation. We outline the connections between Pigouvian and Coasian approaches with the values and prospects for their advancement in the field of political decision-making in the context of demand for economic knowledge and the possibilities of organizing compensating transactions. These connections are considered in the light of the externalities problem as one of the manifestations of market failure, as well as different internalization options. We also clarify the provisions from the theory of externalities in terms of their definition, classification and correlation with the conditions for optimal allocation of resources. The key types of structural alternatives for correcting market flaws are considered, and the main properties of the Pigouvian and Coasian approaches in economics, as they relate to the problem of market and government flaws, are determined. This helps explain why the Coasian approach cannot be considered synonymous with liberal fundamentalism. Finally, we indicate the relationship between normative conclusions and prospects of functionalism and two types of fundamentalism in the field of political decision-making. Using the example of intertemporal externalities, the difference in the approaches of Coasianism and Pigouvianism to their internalization is demonstrated.

Pigouvian vs. Coasian approach: Ideas, values, perspectives

Shastitko

Pavlova

2022

Practice of antitrust and industrial policy (Proceedings of the round table discussion at the anniversary conference of the Chair of Competition and Industrial Policy of the Faculty of Economics, Lomonosov Moscow State University)

Editorial

2023

In modern conditions, the issues of choosing a reasonable balance between antitrust and economic regulation, instruments of antimonopoly and industrial policy — vertical and horizontal — have become actualized. This is due to the fact that several factors have intertwined: digitalization that transforms the usual business models and ideas about acceptable conditions for the functioning of markets; the search for solutions to the problems of sustainable development (low-carbon economy); a dramatic change in geopolitical conditions of doing business in Russia. In 2023, the Chair of Competition and Industrial Policy of the Faculty of Economics of Lomonosov Moscow State University turned 10 years old. On June 14, 2023 an anniversary conference was held to discuss a wide range of issues that the school of institutional studies of competition, industrial and competition policy, which has been formed in Russia, touches upon in its research. Within the framework of the conference, a round table was held on applied issues of antimonopoly and industrial policies in new conditions. Researchers, practicing consultants, and business representatives were invited to the discussion.

Institutional response after technological changes in telecommunications

Shastitko

Ionkina

2023

Imbalances in law enforcement require some alternatives for an institutional response to challenges. Telecommunications is an example industry where technological changes in the environment condition the need to adjust approaches for implementing antitrust tools for competition protection. The article deals with the discussion regarding the choice of structural alternatives for the framework of telecommunications (the institutional framework of this industry). The paper reveals the characteristics of competing alternatives: deregulation (regulation “pending”), economic regulation, reconfiguration of antitrust taking into account the limitations on the side of the regulator. It is shown that the solutions proposed on the basis of the Austrian school of economics and Pigouvian ideas are easily accessible in the framework of public discussions. This is why the economic regulation or deregulation are the most promising directions in the field of public policy. The Coasian approach requires better knowledge of the subject and allows to take into account the limitations on the side of the regulator, however, it is not likely to be accepted. At the same time, this approach provides a wider range of tools as a condition for the adaptive effectiveness of regulation.