EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS

EU ANTITRUST: HOT TOPICS & NEXT STEPS 2022

Prague, Czechia

4.2 Gender related competition? I consider the so-called gender aspects that are beginning to creep into the competition policy agenda as an inorganically instrumentalised “vehicle” for broader policy objectives (a kind of exogenous, imported challenge), which have hardly any competition law relevance, or their relationship to competition is rather artificially construed in the interests of fashionable “political correctness.” Competition policy has traditionally been gender blind. The so-called “gender inclusive competition policy” is a novelty, but one that is looking for content in addition to its name. The view that monopolies and oligopolies disproportionately harm female workers (Hubbard, p. 2), for example, appears to be related to competition. This alleged influence of monopolies is not excluded, as is similarly, for example, their adverse impact on the country’s political system (for economic power obviously brings political power that might be oligopolised) and other social evils caused or supported by them; but this does not still make these factors relevant from the viewpoint of competition law. Supposed income inequality between men and women for the same work is undoubtedly a social problem worth solving. But on the one hand, it is not causal to market power and can occur even for a small employer, and on the other hand, AT law does not have any appropriate tools to address it (or even to take it into account). This is a broader problem of social equality and inequality and their proportions that must be addressed with policy instruments. The ambitions of competition law should remain tied to its own inherent objectives. We can read calls for competition authorities to intervene against gender inequality that leads to a reduction in consumer welfare (Long, p. 267). It has been suggested that competition authorities, “as bastions of consumer welfare”, should even intervene in questions of how household work was divided including labour saving devices (ibid, p. 267). In my opinion, this does not fall within the remit of the competition authorities, even in cases where their statutory mandate is also to protect consumers. Without defining how gender inequality is actually recognised (and whether it is equality or inequality of opportunity or of outcome), it is presumed that these inequalities can cause market distortions or effect consumer welfare (ibid, p. 268). The relationship of these certainly interesting questions, which can be subject to sociological and economic research, to AT and its legal toolbox, is highly unclear. Even a noble intention can be harmed if it becomes shrouded in a veil of clichés and meaningless concepts that are purposefully grafted onto whatever comes within reach. Some of the prejudices, phrases and the way questions are asked in this context are embarrassing (such as “less efficient male entrepreneurs”, “predominantly-male owners of the firms”, “are firms that are led by women more or less likely to fail?”, “would they be more or less likely to lead the firms

362