Acting in the public interest – a framework for analysis - ICAEW

Panel 8.3: UK competition policy and the public interest (continued)In the UK Enterprise Act 2002, public interest was directly preserved only for media mergers,where guidance was given that matters such as accurate presentation, free expressionof opinion and plurality of views – ‘to the extent reasonable and practicable’ – would beconsidered. 184 In other cases the public interest test was replaced by and large, with a purecompetition-based test, although the Secretary of State (that is, the UK government) retainedthe power to intervene in cases where the public interest merited it. 185 This effectively seemedto be saying that it is up to the government to determine the public interest, which isconsistent with our observations in the next chapter on government authority.8.2.4 InteractionDecisions as to what someone should do, cannot usually be made in isolation: it is often thecase that one person’s actions will influence those of others.Game theory works on the premise that to every action there is a reaction by other ‘players’.The reaction can, in principle, be predicted by considering the rules of ‘the game’ although ithas been noted that in some circumstances there are no rules: a freewheeling game. In suchcircumstances it has been suggested that the premise should be that a player does not get outof the game more than he or she puts into it. 186 If the likely reaction is not what is desired, theneither the initial action needs to be changed, or a more lateral approach applied: change theplayers, change the rules, enlist allies, tie people in or change the added value. Commercialexamples of these sorts of behaviour include subsidising the costs of products which then needexpensive consumables, long-term exclusivity contracts, and adding quality to the product.One key problem with game theory is that it presupposes rational, informed behaviour by theother players. 187 As discussed further below, this is not necessarily the case.8.2.5 Weighting of interestsFrom a public interest perspective the key aspect is not the weighting that one individualundertakes between his or her collection of interests, but how the interests of differentindividuals, groups and even societies, are weighted. It can be argued that there should beno weighting at all: ‘the good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the pointof view …of the universe, than the good of any other’. 188 However, this does not recognisethat people have varying needs, abilities and relative interests in an issue, hence the caveat:‘unless…there are special grounds for believing the more good is likely to be realised in theone case than in the other.’This inconvenient but real issue causes problems: ‘the most common and most durablesource of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property’, which has beeninterpreted also to include abilities. ‘Those who hold and those who are without property have189 190ever formed distinct interests in society.’In practice, weighting is applied in a wide range of decisions. Politicians, for example, will atleast in theory, tend to have more regard to poorer/disadvantaged citizens when determiningtaxation and social spending policies. This can be defended up to a point on utilitarian groundsas the marginal value of one pound is greater for a poor person than a well off one. A counterargumentwould be that if this is taken to the extreme, taxation/benefits would continue untileveryone had the same income, reduce incentive and thus reduce the overall pot.Within the UK accountancy profession, such discussion as there is in the profession’s codesand other writings implies that ‘the public interest’ has a sense of ‘majority satisfaction’: somesituations arising where part of the public would be satisfied at the expense of other parts. 191‘National security’ is often a trump card applied although even here other interests cannotbe completely dismissed. An example of this is a seventeenth century English court casewhich decided that the King could remove vital minerals from a private individual’s land asthe taking was considered to ‘extend to the defence of the whole realm, in which everysubject hath benefit’. It was also ordered that the King should restore the land afterwards. 192184Department for Business Innovation and Skills, Enterprise Act 2002: Public Interest Intervention in Media Mergers.185Ibid.186Brandenburger and Nalebuff, ‘The Right Game: Use Game Theory to Shape Strategy’.187Rappeport, ‘Game Theory Versus Practice’.188Sidgwick quoted in Schultz, ‘Henry Sidgwick’.189James Madison, quoted in Faulhaber, ‘The Rise and Fall of ‘Self Interest’’.190Faulhaber, ibid, on Madison.191The Accountancy Foundation Review Board, Protecting the Public Interest.192‘The Kings Prerogative in Saltpetre’ discussed in Manfredo, ‘Public Use & Public Benefit: The Battle for Upstate New York’.Aggregation and decision57