Public Interest Considerations and their Role in Merger Regulation in South Africa

§ University of Pretoria

Send Message

To: Author

Public Interest Considerations and their Role in Merger Regulation in South Africa

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

UT0FE

Public Interest Considerations and their Role in Merger Regulation in South Africa Banner

Key Research Insights

Synthesized scholarly intelligence & interactive research assistant
  • English
  • Afrikaans
  • Albanian
  • Amharic
  • Arabic
  • Armenian
  • Azerbaijani
  • Basque
  • Belarusian
  • Bengali
  • Bosnian
  • Bulgarian
  • Catalan
  • Cebuano
  • Chichewa
  • Chinese (Simplified)
  • Chinese (Traditional)
  • Corsican
  • Croatian
  • Czech
  • Danish
  • Dutch
  • Esperanto
  • Estonian
  • Filipino
  • Finnish
  • French
  • Frisian
  • Galician
  • Georgian
  • German
  • Greek
  • Gujarati
  • Haitian Creole
  • Hausa
  • Hawaiian
  • Hebrew
  • Hindi
  • Hmong
  • Hungarian
  • Icelandic
  • Igbo
  • Indonesian
  • Irish
  • Italian
  • Japanese
  • Javanese
  • Kannada
  • Kazakh
  • Khmer
  • Korean
  • Kurdish (Kurmanji)
  • Kyrgyz
  • Lao
  • Latin
  • Latvian
  • Lithuanian
  • Luxembourgish
  • Macedonian
  • Malagasy
  • Malay
  • Malayalam
  • Maltese
  • Maori
  • Marathi
  • Mongolian
  • Myanmar (Burmese)
  • Nepali
  • Norwegian
  • Pashto
  • Persian
  • Polish
  • Portuguese
  • Punjabi
  • Romanian
  • Russian
  • Samoan
  • Scots Gaelic
  • Serbian
  • Sesotho
  • Shona
  • Sindhi
  • Sinhala
  • Slovak
  • Slovenian
  • Somali
  • Spanish
  • Sundanese
  • Swahili
  • Swedish
  • Tajik
  • Tamil
  • Telugu
  • Thai
  • Turkish
  • Ukrainian
  • Urdu
  • Uzbek
  • Vietnamese
  • Welsh
  • Xhosa
  • Yiddish
  • Yoruba
  • Zulu
Reading Preferences
Font Size
Line Spacing
Background
This converted HTML version may contain rendering inconsistencies. Please refer to the PDF for the authoritative version, or click here to provide feedback.

Abstract

The ultimate goal of any competition policy is to enhance consumer welfare, and it is not surprising that the South African competition policy is founded on the same principles. The South African Competition Act 89 of 1998 aims to promote the efficiency, adaptability and development of the economy, provide consumers with competitive prices and product choices, promote employment and advance the social and economic welfare of South Africans, expand opportunities for South African participation in world markets and recognise the role of foreign competition in the Republic as well as ensure that small and medium-sized enterprises have an equitable opportunity to participate in the economy and to promote a greater spread of ownership, in particular to increase the ownership stakes of historically disadvantaged persons. It is believed that through achieving these aims, consumer welfare in South Africa will be increased.

References

47 Cites in Article
  1. 1. R Whish (2008). Competition Law. Competition Law, 887-148.
  2. 2. A Seely (2014). Takeovers, The public interest test. Takeovers, The public interest test, 1-151.
  3. 3. May Slaughter (2002). The Substantive Test under the Enterprise Act 2002. The Law of Merger Control in the EC and the UK
  4. 4. May Slaughter (2002). UK Merger Control Under the Enterprise Act. UK Merger Control Under the Enterprise Act, 34.
  5. 5. R Whish (2008). Competition Law. Competition Law, 61-156.
  6. 6. May Slaughter (2002). UK Merger Control Under the Enterprise Act. UK Merger Control Under the Enterprise Act, 34.
  7. 7. Elizabeth Hall (2018). easyCar (UK) Limited v Office of Fair Trading 1. The Yearbook of Consumer Law 2007, 42, 381-386.
  8. 8. A Seely (2002). Takeovers, The public interest test. The enterprise Act, Competition Reform', Regulatory impact assessment, 10-166.
  9. 9. S (2010). Report for Thailand’s Office of Trade Competition Commission on Merger Review Competition Law Guidelines. Competition Commission and Office of Fair Trading, 168
  10. 10. A Seely (2014). Takeovers, The public interest test. Takeovers, The public interest test, 1-170.
  11. 11. (2010). S 6.2 Merger Assessment Guidelines. S 6.2 Merger Assessment Guidelines, 173.
  12. 12. Richard Whish,David Bailey (2021). 9. Competition Act 1998: substantive provisions. Competition Law, 12, 349-408.
  13. 13. (2002). Chile Evaluation Report: Regulatory Impact Assessment. Chile Evaluation Report: Regulatory Impact Assessment, 10-183.
  14. 14. Trudi Hartzenberg,; Myeni (2008). Competition Policy and Enterprise Development: The Role of Public Interest Objectives in South Africa’s Competition Policy. Competitive Advantage and Competition Policy in Developing Countries, 48-184.
  15. 15. W Myeni (2008). Public Interest and merger controls in South Africa, The role of public interest in merger evaluations and how efficiency-driven principles are reconciled with public interest considerations. Public Interest and merger controls in South Africa, The role of public interest in merger evaluations and how efficiency-driven principles are reconciled with public interest considerations
  16. 16. D Lewis (2002). The role of public interest in merger evaluation. International Competition Network, Merger Working Group, 2-186.
  17. 17. W Myeni (2008). Public Interest and merger controls in South Africa, The role of public interest in merger evaluations and how efficiency-driven principles are reconciled with public interest considerations. Public Interest and merger controls in South Africa, The role of public interest in merger evaluations and how efficiency-driven principles are reconciled with public interest considerations
  18. 18. D Lewis (2002). Public Interest Considerations in Merger Control. International Competition Network, Merger Working Group, 3.
  19. 19. (1997). Unknown Title. Basic Conditions of Employment Act, 75
  20. 20. Tapiwa Warikandwa,Patrick Osode (2003). Indigenisation Jurisprudence and the Renewed Fight against “Fronting” to Advance Broad-based Black Economic Empowerment in South Africa:. Social and Legal Theory in the Age of Decoloniality, 367-398.
  21. 21. R (1985). Unknown Title. Canadian Competition Act
  22. 22. Jeannine Van De Rheede (1998). Eliminating racial discrimination of employees: An assessment of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998, as amended. Law, Democracy and Development, 28, 174-195.
  23. 23. (1973). THE FAIR TRADING ACT 1973 AND REFORM. Competition Law and Policy in the EU and UK, 41, 267-268.
  24. 24. (1996). Unknown Title. Labour Relations Act, 66
  25. 25. (1998). Project stage 3: leading. Project Skills, 97-119.
  26. 26. Antony Seely,Takeovers (2014). In the Public Interest, September 2014. In the Public Interest, September 2014
  27. 27. David Lewis (2002). The role of public interest in merger evaluation, International Competition Network. The role of public interest in merger evaluation, International Competition Network
  28. 28. (1997). Pryor, Arthur John, (born 7 March 1939), competition consultant, since 1996; Head, Competition Policy Division, Department of Trade and Industry, 1993–96. Pryor, Arthur John, (born 7 March 1939), competition consultant, since 1996; Head, Competition Policy Division, Department of Trade and Industry, 1993–96
  29. 29. (2002). Clarke, Mark Galbraith, (born 19 June 1953), Director General, Finance and Strategy, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (formerly Department of Trade and Industry), 2006–08. The Enterprise Act, Competition Reform -Regulatory impact assessment
  30. 30. James Hodge (2009). Sha'ista Goga and Tshepiso Moahloli, Public interest provisions in the South African Competition Act -A critical review. Competition Policy, Law and Economics Conference
  31. 31. Norman Manoim (2005). The role of competition authorities in hostile takeovers and its inter -relationship with the Securities Regulation Board. The role of competition authorities in hostile takeovers and its inter -relationship with the Securities Regulation Board, 15
  32. 32. Reekie Duncan,W (1999). The Competition Act 1998: An economic perspective. The South African Journal of Economics, 67(2)
  33. 33. May Slaughter (2002). The Substantive Test under the Enterprise Act 2002. The Law of Merger Control in the EC and the UK
  34. 34. Trudi Hartzenberg (2004). Competition Policy and Enterprise Development, The role of public interest objectives in South Africa's Competition Policy. Competition Policy and Enterprise Development, The role of public interest objectives in South Africa's Competition Policy
  35. 35. Vani Chetty (2005). The place of public interest in South Africa's competition legislation. ABA section of antitrust law, 53 rd Spring Meeting
  36. 36. (1999). Consultations between National Competition Authorities and the European Commission in a Decentralised System of EC Competition Law Enforcement. European Competition Law Annual 2002 : Constructing the EU Network of Competition Authorities
  37. 37. Francois Du,Bois (2007). Wille's Principles of South African Law, 9 th Ed. Wille's Principles of South African Law, 9 th Ed
  38. 38. Martinbrassey (2002). Competition Law. Competition Law
  39. 39. Minette Neuhoff (2006). A Practical Guide to South African Competition Policy and Law. A Practical Guide to South African Competition Policy and Law
  40. 40. Phillip Sutherland,Katherine Kemp (2013). Competition Law of South Africa. Competition Law of South Africa
  41. 41. Richard Whish,David Bailey (2008). 2. Overview of EU and UK competition law. Competition Law, 47-81.
  42. 42. Daun Et Cie,A (2007). Li Ka-Shing, Sir, (born 1928), Chairman: CK Hutchison Holdings Ltd; Cheung Kong Property Holdings Ltd. Kolosus Holdings Ltd, 10
  43. 43. (Mar0). Unknown Title. ZACT, 11
  44. 44. (2004). Unknown Title. CPLR, 2
  45. 45. (1998). FARROW FINANCE COMPANY LTD (In liquidation) v ANZ EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD and Others. Victorian Reports, [1998] 1 VR, 50-82.
  46. 46. (1977). BEECHAM GROUP LTD. v. B-M GROUP (PTY.) LTD. Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases, 94(10), 220-232.
  47. 47. (2007). Maljers, Floris Anton, (born 12 Aug. 1933), Chairman, Unilever NV, and Vice Chairman, Unilever PLC, 1984–94. CEPPWAWU, 336

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Simbarashe Tavuyanago. 2015. "Public Interest Considerations and their Role in Merger Regulation in South Africa". Global Journal of Human-Social Science - E: Economics GJHSS-E Volume 15 (GJHSS Volume 15 Issue E7).

More Citation Formats

Download Citation

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJHSS

Print ISSN 0975-587X

e-ISSN 2249-460X

Keywords
Classification
GJHSS-E Classification FOR Code: 149999
Version of record

v1.2

Issue date
September 11, 2015

Language
English
Order Article Reprint
Experience in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

Article Matrices
Total Views: 990
Total Downloads: 79
All Trends

Request Access

Please fill out the form below to request access to this research paper. Your request will be reviewed by the editorial or author team.
X

This is the heading

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Ut elit tellus, luctus nec ullamcorper mattis, pulvinar dapibus leo.

High-quality academic research articles on global topics and journals.

Public Interest Considerations and their Role in Merger Regulation in South Africa

Simbarashe Tavuyanago
Simbarashe Tavuyanago University of Pretoria