The BRICS partnership started as a loose grouping of geographically dispersed countries. The BRICS countries have today a combined population of 3 billion with a total estimated gross domestic product of nearly $14 trillion and around $4 trillion in foreign exchange reserves. China is on the path to becoming the undisputed global leader in export of manufactured goods; India is poised to become the most significant exporter of services. Russia and Brazil dominate as exporters of raw materials. South Africa is ideally situated to reap dividends from the untapped growth potential of the African continent.
While the BRICS countries can entertain many possibilities for newer forms of economic and political coordination, we also face common challenges. Monitoring and managing speculative capital flows is a challenging task in times of global uncertainty. Maintaining a sustainable fiscal policy, while incurring significant public expenditures to raise the standards of living of a large population, is also a task that we have to grapple with continuously. Developing infrastructure at a pace that supports the growth of industry and the increasing aspirations of the people is yet another challenge before us. Last, there is the need for building credible institutions for sustained and equitable growth.
The BRICS countries have chosen differing growth paths suited to their macroeconomic conditions and varied institutional strengths. Yet, I have no doubt that their emergence as economic powerhouses is now an inescapable secular trend which will have a powerful impact on the world. Along with our goal of strong and sustained economic growth we have made a commitment to support the long-term growth of the global economy. This is expected through increased economic, finance and trade cooperation as mentioned in the Sanya Declaration of 2011. Two of the most significant agreements in the pipeline are those that will result in the setting up of a BRICS Development Bank and a Contingency Reserve Arrangement.
Growth, development and poverty reduction are the most important challenges that the governments of our five countries face. To meet these challenges, governments look for a sound architecture of policy in which the beneficial effects of markets can be maximised by action to prevent market failure. The development of a sound competition policy is, therefore, an essential element of such an architecture.
In 1991, India embarked on a path of economic reforms, the essential elements of which were liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation. The erstwhile Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act of 1969, enacted at a time when India had a "command-and-control" economic policy paradigm, was inadequate to regulate the market and ensure promotion of competition therein. A modern Competition Act in tune with the new economic philosophy was required. This led our Parliament to enact the Competition Act, 2002. Unlike the previous Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, the new Competition law does not restrict the size of firms or the concentration of ownership.
In addition to the problems of under development, institutional design problems and government regulation characterise nearly all our economies. These are challenges that have to be recognised for successful implementation of an antitrust regime.
A competition law enforcement regime cannot operate in isolation but instead has to be shaped and transformed by the existing socio-economic ideology and by other available policy tools. The economic objectives promoted by competition law on the one hand and prevailing socio-economic ideologies on the other are often in conflict with each other in economies in transition. This could limit the role and potential of competition law enforcement regimes. Increased awareness of competition rules resulting in the establishment of a competition culture in our economies can go a long way in the effective implementation of competition law.
There is an increasing need to recognise the complementarities between competition law enforcement and liberalisation of markets for procurement. Public procurement is a substantial slice of state spending in most emerging economies. Elimination of unnecessary restrictions and better tender design can enhance possibilities for effective competition, thereby making bid-rigging more difficult. As a result, competitive procurement markets can help save valuable fiscal resources and release funds.
State-owned or public-sector enterprises are another challenge. By virtue of their ownership, they have been shielded from competition and have long enjoyed captive markets. A crucial issue is the exposure of these firms to increased competition. Unfortunately, government ownership inevitably brings with it a bureaucratic style of decision-making and the end result is that the enterprise cannot compete in a market populated by equals. The solution lies in giving public-sector firms greater functional autonomy and freeing them from bureaucratic control.
Business and money know no geographical boundaries. The increasing integration of the world economy in the form of multi-jurisdictional mergers and cross-border anti-competitive conduct makes international cooperation in this arena vitally important for all modern competition authorities. This takes on greater significance in view of the increasing trade flows among BRICS nations that are now on the horizon.
The International Competition Conference is an important platform that brings together leading practitioners and thinkers from the field of competition to provide cross-learning and appreciation of global best practices. It is singularly well-suited to share experiences regarding common challenges and articulate a new consensus on key issues. BRICS competition authorities are also ideally positioned to bridge the gap between mature competition authorities and nascent ones.
Edited excerpts from PM Manmohan Singh's inaugural address at the 3rd BRICS International Competition Conference, New Delhi, November 21