ArticleGlobalization and health2024
Protecting whose welfare? A document analysis of competition regulatory decisions in four jurisdictions across three harmful consumer product industries.
Article in Globalization and health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Toward Monitoring and Addressing the Commercial Determinants of Health: Where Can We Go From Here?The Milbank quarterly · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
methodsCompetition regulation has a strong influence on the relative market power of firms. As such, competition regulation can complement industry-specific measures designed to address harms associated with excessive market power in harmful consumer product industries. This study aimed to examine, through a public health lens, assessments and decisions made by competition authorities in four jurisdictions (Australia, South Africa, the United States (US), and the European Union (EU)) involving three harmful consumer product industries (alcoholic beverages, soft drinks, tobacco). We analysed legal case documents, sourced from online public registers and dating back as far as the online records extended, using a narrative approach. Regulatory decisions and harms described by the authorities were inductively coded, focusing on the affected group(s) (e.g., consumers) and the nature of the harms (e.g., price increases) identified.
resultsWe identified 359 cases published by competition authorities in Australia (n = 202), South Africa (n = 44), the US (n = 27), and the EU (n = 86). Most cases (n = 239) related to mergers and acquisitions (M&As). Competition authorities in Australia, the US, and the EU were found to make many decisions oriented towards increasing the affordability and accessibility of alcohol beverages, soft drinks, and tobacco products. Such decisions were very often made despite the presence of consumption-reduction public health policies. In comparison, South Africa's competition authorities routinely considered broader issues, including 'Black Economic Empowerment' and potential harms to workers.
conclusionMany of the competition regulatory decisions assessed likely facilitated the concentration of market power in the industries we explored. Nevertheless, there appears to be potential for competition regulatory frameworks to play a more prominent role in promoting and protecting the public's health through tighter regulation of excessive market power in harmful consumer product industries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.