Research@Lincoln
    • Login
     
    View Item 
    •   Research@Lincoln Home
    • Research Centres and Units
    • Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit (AERU)
    • AERU Discussion Paper series
    • View Item
    •   Research@Lincoln Home
    • Research Centres and Units
    • Agribusiness and Economics Research Unit (AERU)
    • AERU Discussion Paper series
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Marketing boards and anti-trust policy

    McCann, E.; Lattimore Ralph, G.
    Abstract
    This Discussion Paper presents some views on the relationship between the Acts under which the producer boards operate and the Commerce Act, 1986. In particular, the discussion reviews the interpretation of the powers contained in the Apple and Pear Marketing Act, 1948 in conjunction with the Commerce Act, 1986. While the Apple and Pear Marketing Act provides for monopoly power to be held by the New Zealand Apple and Pear Marketing Board, the Commerce Act provides for the promotion of “competition in markets in New Zealand” (Cooke, 1989). This apparent conflict has been addressed in a recent court action involving the New Zealand Apple and Pear Marketing Board and Apple Fields Ltd. This Discussion Paper presents an economic perspective of the case and its outcome and raises a number of questions which should be addressed. In particular, the ruling provides for the Apple and Pear Marketing Act to take priority over the more recent Commerce Act. Was this Parliament's intention? This case also raised the question of the appropriate representation for people and organisations involved in particular industries. While the democratic system entitles each participant to one vote, should there be some form of weighting where the participants are far from equal in their involvement in the industry, for example, should the 10 hectare apple producer have the same voting power as a 10,000 hectare producer? A further question of importance is the relationship between existing industry participants and new entrants. While freedom of entry and exit is a basic economic principle necessary for maximisation of returns, there appear to be grounds for justifying some constraints on new entrants. However, such constraints would be unnecessary were a free market to operate in terms of grower rights associated with access to export channels. Such issues are raised in this Discussion Paper. Further examination and review of these points is clearly necessary.... [Show full abstract]
    Keywords
    agricultural sector; agricultural marketing; New Zealand; agricultural policy; agricultural marketing boards; Closer Economic Relationship (CER); trade liberalisation; economic aspects; fruit industry; apple industry; pear industry; Apple and Pear Marketing Act 1948
    Fields of Research
    140201 Agricultural Economics
    Date
    1990-03
    Type
    Discussion Paper
    Collections
    • AERU Discussion Paper series [158]
    Share this

    on Twitter on Facebook on LinkedIn on Reddit on Tumblr by Email

    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    aeru_dp_126.pdf
    Metadata
     Expand record
    This service is managed by Learning, Teaching and Library
    • Archive Policy
    • Copyright and Reuse
    • Deposit Guidelines and FAQ
    • Contact Us
     

     

    Browse

    All of Research@LincolnCommunities & CollectionsTitlesAuthorsKeywordsBy Issue DateThis CollectionTitlesAuthorsKeywordsBy Issue Date

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Statistics

    View Usage Statistics
    This service is managed by Learning, Teaching and Library
    • Archive Policy
    • Copyright and Reuse
    • Deposit Guidelines and FAQ
    • Contact Us