Buyer Power seminar at BECCLE               

Last week we had the pleasure to host at BECCLE a seminar on Buyer Power/Monopsony by Professor Lars Henrinksson (http://www.hhs.se/Search/Person/Pages/Person.aspx?PersonID=162) 

with some comments made by Professor Tommy Staahl Gabrielsen, one of the leaders at BECCLE.

Some interesting comments and/or remarks made during the seminar:

• Antitrust legislation should be legally acceptable, economically reasonable and administrative workable.
• Is monopsony the exact reverse of monopoly? Are bilateral monopolies (one with a seller and one with a buyer) counteracting each other?
• For Prof. Henriksson a monopsony can have as much detrimental impact in the economy as a monopoly.
• Benefits of purchaser power: lowering consumer prices, better conditions of supply, could be good for consumers if benefits are passed to them and increase of bargaining power.
• Drawbacks of purchaser power: can be a cartel in disguise. There is risk of tacit coordination/collusion. Rivalry in the downstream market may deteriorate. Water bed effect increasing prices for the rivals.
• In law buyer power is used both as a defence and complaint argument. This can produce a circular argumentation.
• Small players can team up in order to acquire purchaser power.
• There is a need to deal with countervailing power at an early stage to avoid escalation on the problems.

Does this ring a bell to anyone?!

Comments by Tommy Staahl Gabrielsen:

• Purchaser power may lead to lower prices to consumers.
• Theories of harm.
• The reduction of the seller’s power increases buyer’s power as it is only one “cake”.
• Reducing purchaser power will hurt the consumers in the long run. The alternative, giving the power to the seller, is worse.

My first Norwegian month

Yes, it has been already one month and time flies in Bergen. After reading more than 5,000 pages of Public Procurement, State aid, Norwegian Law, Norwegian Culture and Health Law I have to say I am highly motivated. The University of Bergen is a fantastic place to study; my colleagues are nice, smart and warm people. They have really helped me with the acclimatization and the city is beautiful.

I am now in the process of reading and coming up with interesting/tentative ideas in which to base my next 4 years of academic work. To all prospective PhD students out there: it is a challenging experience. We go from the “what the law is” approach to “why the law is” approach. I have to think not about what article applies here or what  decision X said, but rather think what legal problem is unsolved, which parts of the puzzle do not fit, what is missing and, on top of that I need to come with something new and creative!

As a suggestion for potential or even already on-going PhD candidates I recommend reading the following book: How to get a PhD: a handbook for students and their supervisors by Estelle M. Phillips and Derek S. Pugh. It is an easy to read, practical and clarifying book. Take a look at it. There are other options available out there but I had the chance to put my hands around this one.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-get-PhD-handbook-supervisors/dp/0335242022/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1350375735&sr=8-2

Starting from this week I will try to post a summary of the readings I have been doing with a brief commentary on the works and some suggestions to other students/colleagues. I will try to keep this “habit” so that at least you can get some suggestions/recommendations on which texts to buy depending on what you need.

My Norwegian life

My life cannot be better as it is now. I love living. Norway has provided me with the best of opportunities and I am really happy to be here. I have a great job, I have new friends and I have met the person that makes my days shine in rainy Bergen. 

I love Norwegian food and, for the first time, I ate the national lunch during the Sunday: one slice of bread, some thin layer of butter, brunost (the famous Norwegian brown/sweet cheese) and some paprika. I loved it! 

Matpakke at its best

I am scared I am becoming very used to this life style and I am starting to become more and more Norwegianized. I am really looking forward to start speaking the language (I love the sound of the Telemark dialect, different from the Bergen one) and getting more intertwined with Norway.

Brunost, the national cheese

In sum: if you are thinking about applying to a PhD position in Law by all means consider the University of Bergen as a great option. My experience here, so far, has been outstanding.

Elections in Venezuela

This post is not related to competition law-procurement issues, at least not if seeing from a general point of view and it is not my intention to write about politics in this space. I do write about politics but I keep my opinion within my circle of friends and if I do, I tend to write in Spanish.

The results of the Venezuelan elections, however, oblige me to make some general remarks in this blog.

If you are not aware of it, this past Sunday Hugo Chávez was re-elected as president of Venezuela for a new period of 6 years (believe it or not, we have 6 years presidency with free reelection, that is right, the president can be president forever). Chávez won with 54% of the votes and the opposition candidate obtained 45% of the votes. A 9% vote difference. Sounds like a lot and, probably, it is. The difference, however, is that Chávez used to win the past 14 years (yes, fourteen) with 20-40% of difference to the runner up.

Facts and figures of the election (in Spanish but easy to grasp) 

I will now make a translation of a personal comment I wrote in Spanish:

“A lot of people has lost hope (including my parents) and have started to think that democracy is over, that the country is gone and that Mayan prophecies about the end of the days will occur. I refrain myself from thinking so. I do not live in Venezuela not because I do not want to, but because life has decided so. I love my country and I would like to go back. Venezuela is formed of chavistas and non-chavistas. The country belongs to all of us. Whether you like it or not.

The problem does not lie in the "thoughtless chavistas", but rather on the lack of political maturity and in a pseudo-democratic system without any checks and balances.

This past Sunday there was no fraud. Chávez is majority. The fraud lies in the abuse of public funds to finance the government´s party and, let's be honest; we have been during 14 years subject to abuse of TV broadcastings of presidential speeches (without any kind of time-limit and in all TV broadcasters), brain washing and indoctrination.

Those who say: "I won’t vote again" are failing to see the opportunity that was created this past Sunday. There were 2 million newer voters against the regime. Two million. That is a lot of people.

Vote, because it is the only way to transform Venezuela into what you preach of. Vote because the PSUV (Chávez party) is not equivalent to Chávez, and vote because in a democracy you choose: President, Congress, Governors and Mayors. Each and every one of them counts and is part of your country.

In sum, vote because it what makes you call yourself democratic”.

Forum: Competition and Public Procurement Law Challenges in the Health Care Sector

2 weeks ago the Competition and Marketisation Law Research Group of UiB organized a Seminar on Competition Law and Health Care. This event dealt with the legal challenges posed by the application of competition law, public procurement, State aid and the social/political considerations that are intertwined when the State or private entities provide healthcare services.

The Congress had the participation of outstanding speakers, namely: 

• Prof. Wolf Sauter (Tilburg University) on the national enforcement of EU competition law in the HC sector;
• Dr. Okeoghene Odudu (University of Cambridge) on the concept of undertaking in the HC sector;
• Associate Prof. Ronny Gjendemsjø, (one of our guys from UiB) on the effect of inter-Member State trade criterion;
• Research fellow Malgorzata A. Cyndecka (one of our girls from UiB and the mastermind behind the Forum) on the applicability of State aid rules to the financing of the HC sector;
• Conor Quigley (University of Oxford) on how State aid rules may constrain public funding of hospitals;
• Ms. María Jesús Segura Catalán (Deputy Director of Competition & State Aid of EFTA Surveillance Authority) on Altmark I vs. Altmark II;
• Associate Prof. Sune Troels Poulsen (University of Copenhagen) on Altmark I vs. Altmark II;
• Prof. Emeritus Kai Krüger (the most experienced of our guys, UiB) on remarks on social and health services in the EEA and domestic procurement dimension;
• Ms. Anneline Vingsgård (Administration Director of KOFA) on Complaints Board experience under 2006 regime;
• Mr. Morten Goller (Attorney at Law, Wilkborg & Rein) on challenges in the drafting of contract documentation for acquisition of health and social services;
• Mr. Haakon Seeberg (Department Manager, The Confederation of Norwegian Enterprise) on supplier’s perspectives – tendering for health and social services in the Norwegian setting;
• Ms. Nina Ramstad Aatlo (Attorney at Law, The Norwegian Association of Local and Regional Authorities).

During two days we had excellent speeches and interesting debates on what role does the Competition and Public Procurement regimes play in the provision of healthcare services. The high level of discussion was accompanied with excellent food and a lovely evening in the top of Fløien (one of the mountains surrounding Bergen) sharing ideas, a glass of wine and good time among colleagues.

I would like to remark the labor of Malgorzata as the leader and responsible of the success of the event. Well done! Last but not least, I want to also send my thanks to Håvard, Ingrid and Tatyana who were behind the stage making sure all went perfect. It was awesome to work with all you guys!