a tripartite report - Unctad

18 VOLUNTARY PEER REVIEW OF CLP: A TRIPARTITE REPORT ON THE UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA – ZAMBIA – ZIMBABWE
quality of the whole organization. Otherwise the
proper competitive environment. The competition
authority should become like a Central Bank for
the real economy. Competition oriented reforms
require a technical body to design them and the
Competition Authority is the right institution for
being granted such powers. It should not remain a
second tier institution. The goal to be achieved is
for the Authority to get the resources, the quality
of staff, the salary and the status of the Bank.
The Authority of the United Republic of Tanzania it
better funded. It has a staff of 58, of which approximately
24 is dedicated to antitrust enforcement
and competition advocacy. Contrary to Zimbabwe,
the staff salaries are much higher than the average
civil service and competitive with the private
sector, also because more than 90 per cent of the
Authority’s budget has been funded by a World
Bank grant. This is not a lasting arrangement. The
Government will soon take responsibility for the
budget of the institution. Like the Central Bank
is advising the Government on economic policy,
so the Competition authority should advise the
Government on micro policies (economic regulation
and liberalization). Indeed also in the United
Republic of Tanzania the Central Bank should become
the reference for the staff salaries and status
of the institution.
In Zambia the Authority has a total staff of 29 of
which 17 is directly involved in competition and
consumer issues and only half on antitrust enforcement.
Staff salaries are quite good and compare
well nationally and regionally. The present
inadequate and staff is unable to handle the increasing
number of cases and funding is the major
constraint that the Authority faces. The Authority
recently appointed 10 part time Inspectors and a
total of 60 Inspectors are planned to be hired n all
the country’s nine Provinces. All this people needs
specialized training.
The Zambian Authority needs appropriate Government
funding, increasing substantially from the
current level (at around 36 per cent of the total).
The major source of the Commission’s income is
tion
fees are predominant. New fees to be soon
established for the exemption of anticompetitive
total (it may not be so because the fees may substantially
reduce the incentive to notify).
It is not a good policy for Government institutions
to be funded by the market through fees levied on
statutory activities. The major problem is that once
the fees are in place every change in current practices
that may be appropriate on the substance
may be blocked because of the effect it may have
on the funding of the Authority. In other words the
funding of the Authority may become a reason to
avoid well meaning reforms (for example it may
become impossible to eliminate the exemption
procedure if this would lead to a reduction in the
competition law should be paid to Treasury, to
companies, as this is likely to compromise its in-
funds for the Authority, may lead to erosion of
trust and credibility of its actions by the business
community.
If there is a need for external funding merger noti-
ture
could be devised to be in some sort of relation
with the complexity of the analysis. In other
words the fee could increase in proportion of the
turnover of the acquired company, not just with
the turnover of the notifying party.
diction
and everywhere they are biased with respect
of the turnover of the notifying company.
This bias should be eliminated. In Zambia there
is the extra problem that fees are way too high
000). As the Zambia Report rightly notes, “the
transaction costs of merger transactions, and
ing
parties who in most cases enter into merger
transactions for economic and viability reasons.
Secondly, it would not be prudent for the Com-
for the funding of its operations since such fees
are not a stable source of income.”
achieved through Government funds, since inde-