Covid-19 and the geopolitics of the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index

The Covid-19 pandemic has revealed that trade is not a free flow whose tap globalization has turned on for good: export may be restricted due to unavailability and, as in the case of import, as part of foreign policy. What emerged as a discontinuity with the globalization of the last three decades makes the assessment of a market structure more challenging.

When evaluating a horizontal merger or acquisition, once the relevant market has been defined, competition authorities have to calculate the market shares. This assessment provides a first indication of the market structure and the competitive importance of both the merging parties and their competitors.

In some jurisdictions, such as the EU and the US, the market shares are used to assess the concentration using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI); the higher the post-merger HHI and its post- and pre-merger variation, the lower the probability that the notified operation will be unconditionally approved by the authorities. This quantitative tool assumes that the undertakings on the supply side are independent; this is why mergers unlikely to identify horizontal competition concerns may require additional scrutiny in case of “significant cross-shareholdings among the market participants” or when “indications of past or ongoing coordination, or facilitating practices, are present[1] .

How the recent pandemic has affected trade is relevant for competition policy in two ways:

  • The trend of trade policies that has broadened the perimeter of the geographic dimension of relevant markets can suddenly U-turn;
  • The explanatory power of the HHI may be negatively affected by undertakings that are linked by something less observable than cross-shareholdings and past or ongoing coordination.

National security and the geographic relevant market

In the first half of 2020, countries that were importers of personal protective equipment (PPE), such as gowns, gloves, face-masks and protective eyewear, saw their stockpiles shrink alarmingly. PPE manufacturing, in fact, has become more and more concentrated during the last years in low-cost countries, which is consistent with David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, the cornerstone of an inclusive globalization (IMF, 2020).

This efficiency-improving concentration has reduced the resilience of trade once the PPE manufacturing countries were hit by the virus: less production due to the respective lockdowns, fewer PPE exports to protect the health of their own citizens. Export restrictions, legitimate tools when national security is at stake (see Art. XI: 2 letter b of the GATT and Art. 36 of the TFEU), have showed how the geographic dimension of the relevant markets pushed by globalization can suddenly shrink.

When the nationality of market shares matters

Along with trade disruption, the Covid-19 pandemic has made the nationality of imports relevant not only for the application of the rules of origin by customs authority. Countries are characterized by different degrees of interventionism in their respective economies as reflected in the distinction between market and non-market economies. Though this distinction is only relevant to calculate the dumping margin within the WTO[2], it also affects the extent to which firms can be controlled by the state.

Some authors (see Zhang, 2012; Petit, 2016; Enderwick, 2017; Biguet, 2018; Healey, 2018) have already analyzed how State-controlled enterprises (SCEs)[3] can be more challenging for competition policy enforcement. For example, when the control is indirect (ie, the de jure decision-makers are de facto following the State’s authorities’ indications), then SCEs can disguise a horizontal acquisition as a more leniently-assessed conglomerate acquisition and can more easily coordinate their behaviors in an anti-competitive way.

It is understandable that two SCEs controlled by the same State may not be considered as two independent undertakings in the HHI calculation; but what about SCEs controlled by different States?

If SCEs exporting a specific commodity are in countries that are strongly linked – eg, by economic, military and political relationships – and if these countries are blessed with an effective retaliatory power, then it is more likely that coordinated sovereign behaviors generate a cartel for that commodity. The case of export cartel is nothing new if we consider the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The retaliatory power of a sovereign member is stronger the longer the political horizon of its government and the wider the portfolio of its SCEs[4].

In the case of PPE, the production is concentrated mainly in China and South-East Asian countries such as Malaysia, Thailand and Viet Nam. During the Covid-19 pandemic China’s authorities have already provided evidence to control, for political reasons, the export of goods essential for public health (this is the so-called ‘mask diplomacy’ mentioned by Legarda, 2020 and Fuchs et al ., 2020).

However, Chinese firms that export PPE may have a weight in their relevant markets that trespass the market share calculated for the HHI. China’s authorities, in fact, along with a vertical influence over their domestic firms, can exert a horizontal influence with countries[5] where the majority of PPE is manufactured and where an unorthodox understanding of the market economy may turn firms, if required, into SCEs. Differently from OPEC, where the leading countries could not be too choosy in their export (due to the weight of oil revenues on their respective GDP), PPE exporters have more diversified economies and can easily buffer the restrictions of an effective cartel lead by a country whose retaliatory power is not weakened by an election cycle or by the unpredictability of democracy.

Lesson learned

After the initial emergency due to PPE shortages, importing countries have replenished their respective stockpiles (once the initial export restrictions have been lifted), have used demand-side substitutes, have produced PPE thanks to supply-side substitutability and, as in the case of the EU[6], have launched a debate around proactive industrial policies inspired by import-substitution wishes.

But the alarm about the trade resilience and the nationality of import has been rung. And, as cheap goods such as PPE have become the clog in the wheel of public health, other commodities essential for national security, currently traded, may be subject to unexpected restrictions.

The recent evidence suggests that the assessment of a market structure may be challenging because, in some sectors, the connections between undertaking is not as observable as cross-shareholdings or coordination. Thus, for the HHI, market shares that are summed after having been squared, should instead be summed before having been squared. This is why, the mathematical beauty of the HHI has to be ‘corrupted’ with qualitative geopolitical analysis.

[1] Art. 20 letters c) and e) of the Guidelines on the assessment of horizontal mergers under the Council Regulation on the control of concentrations between undertakings (2004 / C 31/03).

[2] See the second Ad Note to Article VI: 1 of the GATT 1994.

[3] Both ownership and control are not easy to ascertain (UNCTAD, 2016; Damgaard et al. , 2019), however the former is not relevant in competition as demonstrated, for example, by the ownership-neutrality principle in the EU. A State, in fact, can behave as a market economy investor, and an enterprise can be controlled by the State even if it is listed among the shareholders in the cap table.

[4] A sufficiently diversified portfolio of SCEs facilitates cross-subsidization especially if some sectors of the domestic economy are not open to competition.

[5] Especially in countries where Belt and Road Initiative projects are financed by Chinese entities (see Fels, 2017 and Hiebert, 2020).

[6] On 16 June 2020 the EU Commission has launched a consultation to develop a new “strategic autonomy” advocated by the European Council (23 April 2020) that combines the commitment to free and fair trade with the need of producing essential goods within EU borders.



Stefano Riela

Leave a Reply

Related Posts

27. Oct 2022
Features by Daniel Mandrescu
tv broadcasting; competition law; art. 102 TFEU; antitrust; merger control

Opinion of AG Kokott in Case-449/21 (Towercast): filling gaps in EU merger control and creating new routes for dealing with killer acquisitions through the DMA 

Earlier this month AG Kokott delivered an opinion that quickly caught the attention of the (EU) competition law community. It covered a matter which has long been left unaddressed after the introduction of EU (and national) merger control rules, namely the possibility to apply art. 102 TFEU to concentrations.  According to AG Kokott, this possibility, which has been thought to […]
26. Sep 2022
by Carlo Monegato

The modernisation of EU merger control

THE MODERNISATION OF EU MERGER CONTROL The long-awaited judgment in the Illumina/Grail art. 22 EUMR dispute was announced on 13 July 2022. The General Court confirmed that the European Commission has the power to decide on a merger, referred to it by a Member State, that does not meet the EU thresholds nor was it notified nationally. What follows is […]
18. Jan 2022
Features by Daniel Mandrescu
smartphone menu

The Apple App Store case in the Netherlands – a potential game changer

Just before 2021 ended, Apple suffered a loss in the Netherlands where a national court in preliminary relief proceedings struck down its attempt to block the remedies imposed by the Dutch competition authority following a finding of abuse of dominance. As a result, as of last weekend, Apple is forced to accept third-party payment solutions implemented in (paid) dating apps […]
19. Apr 2021
Features by Friso Bostoen
Article 22, Merger Regulation, European Commission, Guidance, killer acquisitions, GAFAM

The Commission’s Article 22 EUMR Guidance: catching killer acquisitions through the merger referral procedure?

Over the past five years, the EU’s merger control regime has been hotly debated. The main concern driving the debate has been the intensive acquisition activity in the tech and pharmaceutical sectors. However, many of those acquisitions escape the jurisdictional thresholds of the EU Merger Regulation (EUMR) and therefore cannot be reviewed by the European Commission (EC). On 26 March […]
23. Mar 2021
Features by Inês F. Neves

A role for competition policy in fighting gender inequality: not a matter of if, but how

Competition policy is normally thought to be fit at promoting and protecting effective competition in markets, this way enhancing efficient outcomes to the benefit of consumers. As a result, while one may point to some indicia on the relevance of other public interests and values (let us consider, for instance, Articles 101(3) and 106 of the Treaty on the Functioning […]
18. Feb 2021
Features by Alexandr Svetlicinii

“Three Great Mountains” for the Chinese State-Owned Investments in the European Union

In April of 1948, Chairman Mao Zedong in his speech to a conference of political cadres mentioned the “three great mountains” that need to be overcome by the revolutionary forces: imperialism, feudalism and crony capitalism. The commentators of the current affairs argued that the current Chinese leadership is facing the “three great mountains” of pandemic containment, post-pandemic economic recovery and […]
26. Nov 2020
Features by Daniel Mandrescu

Lithuanian Railways and Slovak Telecom – Implications for the Essential Facility Doctrine

The recent cases of Lithuanian Railways and Slovak Telekom address the matter of refusal to deal. Both cases, which do not engage in the assessment of this abuse, in fact, provide important guidance on the scope of application of the essential facility doctrine for current practice that will be covered in this post. Refusals to deal and the essential facility […]
12. Oct 2020
Features by Alexandr Svetlicinii

Two hats on one head: Competition authorities and FDI screening

The Regulation 2019/452 establishing a framework for the screening of foreign direct investments into the Union (EU FDI Screening Regulation) was adopted on 19 March 2019 and became fully operational on 11 October 2020. Its adoption was preceded by the heated discussion on the need to reform the EU merger control framework, which according to some stakeholders, should be able […]
16. Jun 2020
Features by Virgilio Mouta Pereira

Hitting the mark or setting the bar too high? The “merger gap” and prospective analysis in the aftermath of CK Hutchison/Telefónica

by Miguel Marques de Carvalho and Virgílio Pereira On 28 may 2020, the General Court (“GC”) handed down a landmark judgment whereby it overturned the European Commission’s (“Commission”) decision which had prohibited the four-to-three acquisition of Telefónica UK (“O2”) by Hutchison 3G UK (“Three”). This blogpost provides an overview  of the main points raised by the ruling and offers some […]
09. Jun 2020
Features by Alice Rinaldi
Mobile apps image

Re-imagining the Abuse of Economic Dependence in a Digital World

As proven by the recent consultation on the Digital Services Act, the European Union is actively pursuing new solutions to cope with the challenges posed by digitalization. This post proposes a new approach to conducts taking place in the context of online commercial relationships, such as refusals to access platforms or datasets. Namely, it suggests that the European legislator should […]

If you are interested, please use our Newletter to stay informed about our upcoming conferences, workshops, trainings and current published journals in our core areas of EU competition, data protection, substances and environmental law, as well as exciting new projects in emerging technologies and digitalisation.

Don’t miss any news and sign up for our free news alert.  Sign up now