Post by account_disabled on Mar 12, 2024 10:23:06 GMT 1
In my view, the contribution of academia to Law must always be twofold. Criticize what you identify as wrong in the past and present and imagine alternatives and institutional changes for the future. From criticism we must necessarily move on to reconstruction proposals. Pessimistic academics are a contradiction in terms, as pessimism means that they have not set out to suggest coherent models for reconstructing the reality they criticize.
In the country, this movement of criticism and reconstruction should seem obvious in terms of disciplining monopolies. Our relationship with monopolies has been symbiotic Portugal Mobile Number List since the colony. From then until now, the disproportion of power between monopolists and the rest of society was such that it shaped Brazilian society. From the economy, State and society organized around monopolies in colonial Brazil, to governments formed by oligopolies (café au lait republic) in independent Brazil, to the development plans based on oligopolistic or monopolized industries (the automobile industry of the 1950s and 60s of the 20th century to the national champions of the first decades of the 21st century), all mediated by relevant phases of neoliberalism in which the State's non-interference and privatizations allowed monopolies to expand and operate freely, Brazilian society and the State seem not manage to get rid of them.
It is not surprising that this concentration of power and income that drains everything, from the consumer market to the labor market, leading to the impossibility of its own economic dynamics in different sectors of society (sectors dependent on monopolies), has generated one of the worst countries income distribution in the world.
In a reality like this, it is not surprising but it certainly generates concern about the lack of effectiveness of our anti-monopoly discipline.
More than 25 years after the first "modernizing" law of our anti-monopoly law (law no. 8,884 of 1994), it is not possible to be satisfied with the results obtained by Brazil in this area.
On the one hand, in terms of controlling structures, the greatness of the purposes did not correspond to effectiveness. In recent and in-depth empirical research carried out in his doctoral thesis, doctor Rodrigo Fialho Borges concluded after reading and analyzing more than 8 thousand Cade decisions that the percentage of decisions with effective restrictions on acts of concentration tends to almost zero. After a somewhat more encouraging start after the 1994 law, concentration control has been losing effectiveness, and even more intensely after the introduction by the new law (law no. 12529 of 2011) of healthy prior control. The numbers are impressive: from 1994 to 2018, of the operations analyzed, CADE failed only 0.21%, imposed structural restrictions on only 0.81% and behavioral restrictions on 1.32%. [1]
The reality is not so different when it comes to controlling conduct. More effective in the administrative sphere, at least with regard to the prosecution of cartels [2] , it still lacks a fundamental complement, namely, the translation of convictions or confessions into civil compensation for the victims. Existing and very serious cases, with approved confessions or trials by Cade, have left huge marks on the economy of the regions or on the affected victims. Until now, they remain without relevant sanctions in Brazil, either due to the enormous delay in transforming them into compensation or due to the judicial challenge (of enormous duration) of the administrative condemnatory decisions themselves.