An Analogy of Monopoly to Marriage

By Dennis Badi

RICE or paddy grain as it is known by Asians was introduced in Papua New Guinea long before the country got Independence.

Places like Kairuku in Central Province or Sumkar in Madang have farmed rice since the 1950s and 70s. Now with the monopolistic situation brewing in the not too distant future, what is in store for the landowners will be a major concern.

A rice project, proposed to be located in Central in 2012 was said to invest billions for a commercial rice farming venture in the Kairuku district, covering some 100,000 hectares. It may appeal to many people like politicians. The company, most probably an expatriate owned would seek among others, imposition of 60-80% import tariffs or zero income taxes for example for employees earning up to K360, 000 per annum, and several exclusive rights from the government including monopoly over production, importation and perhaps distribution of rice.

Courts and civil sector have wrestled with monopoly for ages, every so often defining it as: “undoing the benefits of competition” or “anti-competitive behaviour.” For any monopolistic situation it would be more deplorable that proponents think in line with de facto marriages including failed promises that never eventuated where the project beneficiaries, mostly the landowners, never benefiting or their living conditions often deteriorate a few years after the project.  

Reasonably, it would be useful also for the government to fully gauze landowners concerns in light of growing outside interests in PNG’s resource sector if there were monopolistic arrangements. Theoretically, many people would condemn or outlaw monopoly however we try looking at it as an anti-competitive behaviour, without confining ourselves to what’s traditionally seen as monopoly.

Monopoly is all but undesirable as it closes the market to competition that we know, or at least it is supposed to. And for a monopoly on rice industry which is looming in Kairuku area, I very much marvel at its analogy to my marriage contract. What's more, church sanctioned marriage which is witnessed by relatives is actually a monopoly document, a cartel of rights, as I recalled the yesteryears when I wed my wife-to-be Cesley.

Our marriage vows, witnessed by late Auxiliary Bishop Cherubim, families and friends at Saint Peter’s Chanel, certainly represents a legally sanctioned agreement between two parties. Typically an agreement as such exclude competitors and further restrain trade and has sets of benefits and also costs.

As I have exclusive rights to her affections and property rights to a stream of highly valued domestic services, I place in her higher value, making me willing to share with her a greater percentage of my affluence: take-home pay, superannuation, a village house and an unremitting support from my parents. From this collusive arrangement, my wife also receives comparable sets of benefits.

This monopolistic situation as in many marriages has its outlay and perhaps on top of that some clumsiness as many would describe it. Neither one of us is as attentive as before we made our marriage vows or a contractual agreement. For my part, and months before I wrote this piece, I usually hang out a lot with friends, pick her after work up in the nick of time, and not as nearly considerate or chivalrous as before our marriage nearly six years late. Reason being I was competing against other men, common things guys fall prey to, and therefore could ill afford to act as a monopolist.

Read the Old Testament's Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 5 in the revised version of Good News Bible, where God gave Moses the Ten Commandments. The first commandment, and presumably the most important is, “Worship no God but me.” The second is, “Do not bow down to any idol or worship it, for I am the Lord your God . . .” Then there's, “Do not use my name for evil purposes, for I, the Lord your God, will punish anyone who misuses my name. . . .”

If a corporation made a similar decree regarding its services, it would find itself in the sights of the Courts for gross violations of anti-trust provisions in certain places like in Australia. Further, the Ten Commandments in the bible dictate exclusive dealing and will be against my actions since the commandments would neither allow substitutes nor competition with God.

To condemn monopolistic practices as an act of malevolence, at least for consistency, would mean to condemn marriage and the basic tenet of Christianity. For some people, they neither would condemn marriage, the monopolistic tenets of Christianity, nor do some of them condemn a business monopoly as the proposed rice monopoly.

Recently at a Rice Monopoly seminar held at the National Research Institute (NRI) in February, there were expressions of anxiety raised by the landowners. The five chairmen representing the Mekeo, North Mekeo, Roro, Waima and Gabadi, though supported the project, were vocal on benefit sharing, how their customary land will be obtained and the possibility of transferring company ownership after 20 or so years. 

“We applaud such a project, however many of us have not seen the deed of agreement. As a substantive project we want the government to incorporate our concerns.” says Henry Maino, chairman of the North Mekeo hinterlands and my ex-economics teacher and also who concluded that: “We can plant rice, as we have been doing so for many years, especially in 2-3 hectare plots. What we need is only good technical advice and government support”.  

Without any doubt, the landowners are key actors in any project and with their knowledge in rice farming all they want is a fair deal from the government. If their cases were genuine enough then it would be more helpful for proponents of the rice monopoly and the Kairuku leaders decide in a round-table either at Bereina or Port Moresby.

Most probably the moral argument that can be used to condemn and outlaw monopoly is when a project proposal is done through secrecy without involvement of key actors or created through fraud, threats, intimidation or coercion. Some of the issues raised by the landowner chairmen let alone the opponents of monopoly see the goings-on of the proposed rice monopoly as a bad deal unless their concerns are addressed.

This is a free country and foreign corporations are free to enter our market, is the line of reasoning by the NRI and the Independent Consumer and Competition Commission (ICCC). Undoubtedly, any project must be open for scrutiny and debate.

The government’s think tank views the monopoly situation as detrimental to the overall welfare of the people, since the costs of the monopoly far outweigh its benefits while the Consumer Watchdog argues that the proposal contravenes the ICCC Act (2002) that propagates competition and fair trading.

Above all the free market, including free international trade, is the most effective protection against monopolistic abuses such as our membership to the World Trade Organisation. In fact an open market, monopolistic companies can retain their monopoly power only if they do not fully exploit it or other companies will enter.

They are far too many bad deals since Independence. Year 2012 will be the seventh time our country is going to the polls and PNG voters are encouraged to vote wisely. Vote in leaders who are capable to help us, help ourselves. The reality is if leaders don’t come down to us to discuss issues, we will come up to them.

.