“It is very important that the new Antitrust president be an independent, competent figure with international openness. But above all at this moment it is relevant that he is a convinced supporter of competition as a growth tool for the economy and that he is courageous in pursuing this institutional vision ”. So argues Alberto Pera, ten years spent in the front row of the Competition Authority as Secretary General, one of the leading experts on the subject, founder of the Antitrust department of the Gianni, Origoni, Grippo, Cappelli & Partners firm and current President of the Antitrust Association Italiana, to which the main Italian law firms and antitrust economic consultancy firms adhere. For FIRSTonline, Pera outlines the ideal profile for Giovanni Pitruzzella's successor who will conclude his mandate at the helm of the Market Guarantor Authority just this weekend.
It is an opportunity to take stock of the "state of health" of competition in Italy, accused in recent months by the new Lega-M5S majority. A "process" that also risks casting threatening shadows on the independence of the Authorities, as seen with the Consob case and the push for the resignation of its president, Mario Nava. All this while we return to talk of nationalizations - for example for Alitalia or Autostrade - and the dirigisme of the State in the economy reappears in the political debate. Thus we also anticipate the issues that will be addressed on Thursday 4 October at the conference organized in Rome by Luiss and the Italian Antitrust Association, of which Pera is president.
Avvocato Pera, what identikit would you feel like suggesting to the presidents of the Chamber and Senate who will have to choose Giovanni Pitruzzella's successor as president of the Antitrust?
“To answer you, I would like to make a premise. Pitruzzella in his mandate underlined the role of competition as a factor of growth and innovation; he applied antitrust law forcefully against cartels, especially in the public procurement sector; it has opened up new fronts for the large operators of the digital economy; it used the Authority's new powers vis-à-vis the public administrations; acted systematically in the field of consumer protection. Surely the judgment on his mandate is positive. Now it is a question of continuing, even with greater determination, along this same line.
And since competition hasn't been particularly in the spotlight in recent months, we thought we'd draw attention to the topic at the conference we've organized on 4 October together with LUISS, in which we'll call not only academics and technicians but business representatives to discuss to illustrate how competition determines corporate strategy.
Returning to your question, the new Antitrust president we would like is independent, competent, open to international relations and chosen with a transparent procedure. In recent months, the Italian Antitrust Association has sent a letter in this regard to the Presidents of the Chambers, who in fact launched a public procedure on 14 September to collect expressions of interest. It's already a first step”.
An important post such as that of chairman of the Antitrust is always at risk of subdivision despite the complexity of the parliamentary procedure envisaged for his appointment. Above all, it appears so now, in the light of the reversals made by the new majority in public subsidiaries, from Rai to the Railways to the CDP. Do you also consider it a risk for the Antitrust and Consob?
“The moment we are going through and the statements we read in the press can give rise to this concern. However, I consider a merely dividing agreement difficult as some fear. It is obvious that these appointments will also be discussed within the parties in government but the nomination system, defined in the 90s, was conceived precisely to resist the appetites of the parties: in particular the five-party party of the time, with particularly as invasive as the DC and the PSI of that season. For this reason the nomination was entrusted to the presidents of the Chambers who were then Nilde Iotti and Giovanni Spadolini, two personalities of notable stature. All things considered, the system also worked afterwards, and I don't see a direct intervention by the Government on the Antitrust appointment as probable: the start of the procedure to which I referred earlier seems to me an indication in this sense”.
In the last twenty years politics has progressively left the economy with privatizations and the opening of markets, for example in telecommunications. Now, however, we are witnessing a rethinking and the M5S ministers are speaking openly of nationalisation: I am thinking of the Autostrade case, the postponement of definitive energy liberalisation, the return of the State to Alitalia with the hypothesis of FS joining the company, intervention by the CDP, strengthening Poste Italiane in the capital. Are we running the risk of new monopolies?
“Effectively one reads statements that leave one perplexed: on the one hand, they seem simplifications without too much insight into complex subjects; on the other, they indicate a singular lack of memory. In fact, it is forgotten that the market liberalization process and privatizations were not so much imposed by a liberal ideology (which, if anything, came later) but rather by the crisis and in some cases failure of the public system of state holdings - the 'Iri, Efim and Eni itself at the time – which gradually got worse from the end of the 70s until it was completely unsustainable in the early 90s. Privatizations are often evoked for negative cases – the governance of Telecom Italia or the case of infrastructures – but one forgets to mention the very positive effects of liberalizations in markets such as telephony or high-speed rail, as well as the results of companies such as Enel, which has transformed itself from a national monopoly to one of the most important and innovative international operators; like Eni itself, which has returned to being a leading player in the oil markets, or like Autogrill, which has become a world leader in motorway catering”.
And Alitalia?
“Again we forget that Alitalia's troubles do not derive from private management but from past public management, from the refusal at the time to integrate into a larger group (first with KLM and then with Air France) and from the difficulty of remedying to those problems posed by those wrong choices. Is it thought to solve everything in a simplistic way with some nationalization? The idea has been launched but let's wait to see what will happen in practice. Seen in an Antitrust logic, it must be said that the climate has certainly changed, but the Authority has the tools to intervene: first of all by applying the legislation for the control of concentrations. And then by making his opinion heard on the directions that are emerging and on the alternatives that could possibly be followed to pursue other objectives of a public nature without unduly limiting competition".
Lastly, the case of the great web giants such as Google, Amazon, Facebook or Apple. The Cambridge Analytica case has exposed the risks of manipulating the enormous amount of data they have. Is it time to "unpack" them as AT&T's monopoly was once unpacked in the United States? The theme is more European than Italian but reflection is open. What do you think?
“The hypothesis of a dismemberment seems premature to me also because in the case of these giants that operate on digital platforms it is not very clear how they could be dismembered. However, the European and Italian Antitrust with Pitruzzella have lit a light on the strategic use that platforms can make of data to limit competition between them and by new entrants. And on the possibility that through acquisitions they can strengthen their market power”.
