Competitiveness Without the Cronyism
Big mergers are back in fashion. So are “national champions,” industrial-policy wish lists, and solemn warnings that antitrust enforcement may leave the West defenseless against foreign rivals. In Washington, Brussels, and London, competition policy increasingly sounds less like economics and more like geopolitical strategy.
That trend creates a real risk of confusion. Antitrust is not supposed to function as an all-purpose ministry of industrial policy. At the same time, antitrust cannot pretend modern competition is captured by a static snapshot of domestic market shares. In innovation-driven global markets, firms compete through scale, capabilities, investment, and technological change—not just price levels in narrowly defined markets.
Policymakers increasingly invoke this sense of global “competitiveness” in debates over merger control, innovation, resilience, scale, and global rivalry. The term is often frustratingly imprecise. At its worst, it becomes a polite euphemism for protectionism: approve this merger, excuse this restraint, or subsidize this favored firm because it is “ours.” That version of competitiveness has no legitimate place in antitrust analysis. It substitutes national favoritism for competition on the merits.
There is, though, a more coherent—and more defensible—understanding of competitiveness. Properly defined, competitiveness refers to firms’ ability to succeed on the merits by operating efficiently, innovating, and serving customers effectively. Understood that way, competitiveness is not a rival to consumer welfare. It is one of the primary mechanisms through which consumer welfare emerges over time.
That distinction matters. The competitiveness concern worth taking seriously is not whether a domestic firm becomes larger, more politically influential, or better insulated from rivals. The relevant question is whether antitrust analysis accurately accounts for productive efficiencies, dynamic capabilities, innovation incentives, global competitive constraints, and the long-run process through which firms create value for consumers. That distinction should frame the current debate.