Competition Policy in South Africa: From 1994 to Now

This paper examines the evolution of South African competition policy since the Competition Act of 1998, focusing on merger control and anti-cartel enforcement. Using a Bayesian decision-theoretic framework, the analysis evaluates whether enforcement trends are driven by research and policy experience or by shifting policy preferences. The findings reveal two divergent paths: merger control has become significantly more interventionist with broader theories of harm, largely driven by changing policy preferences rather than empirical evidence; meanwhile, anti-cartel enforcement expanded rapidly before stabilising, with its growth primarily supported by learning effects and international practices, though recent novel interpretations of collusion also reflect preference shifts. The paper identifies tensions between these approaches—one evolving based on economic literature and international precedent, the other shaped by policymaker preferences. It concludes that competition policy dominated by preferences rather than systematic, evidence-based evolution may undermine effective competition enforcement, even when pursuing broader objectives beyond economic efficiency.

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
ERSA Working Paper Series
Published
2025-05-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.71587/r81yfc24
Primary Topic
Merger and Competition Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Competition Policy in South Africa: From 1994 to Now

ERSA Working Paper Series
Merger and Competition Analysis
article

Competition Policy in South Africa: From 1994 to Now

article en

Abstract

This paper examines the evolution of South African competition policy since the Competition Act of 1998, focusing on merger control and anti-cartel enforcement. Using a Bayesian decision-theoretic framework, the analysis evaluates whether enforcement trends are driven by research and policy experience or by shifting policy preferences. The findings reveal two divergent paths: merger control has become significantly more interventionist with broader theories of harm, largely driven by changing policy preferences rather than empirical evidence; meanwhile, anti-cartel enforcement expanded rapidly before stabilising, with its growth primarily supported by learning effects and international practices, though recent novel interpretations of collusion also reflect preference shifts. The paper identifies tensions between these approaches—one evolving based on economic literature and international precedent, the other shaped by policymaker preferences. It concludes that competition policy dominated by preferences rather than systematic, evidence-based evolution may undermine effective competition enforcement, even when pursuing broader objectives beyond economic efficiency.

ERSA Working Paper Series
Stellenbosch University (ZA)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 50%
Merger and Competition Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.