Long hailed as a pioneer in telecommunications deregulation, this paper examines
Hong Kong's market liberalization experience since 1995. To understand Hong
Kong's deregulation effort, we proceed by evaluating the liberalization exercise
in light of experiences derived from other countries. Three countries, including
the United States, Canada and New Zealand, are chosen for comparative study.
These countries are not randomly selected but rather because they reflect three
different deregulation approaches. Different deregulation approaches were a
result of the diverse ways these countries adopted in dealing with problems that
had surfaced during the deregulation process. Our study indicates that market
solutions to such problems seem to be a better way forward than letting the
government micromanage the process of deregulation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmstrongMark.
2001. “The Theory of Access Pricing and
Interconnection”, forthcoming in the Handbook of
Telecommunications Economics edited by CaveMartinMajumdarSumitVogelsangIngo,
North Holland.
2.
BertrandFrançoiseRabeauYvesWaldronDavid.
2001. Canadian Telecommunications Regulation and
Competition: Lessons for Europe. Working paper,
Centre de Recherche en
Gestion.
3.
BuchananJamesBrennanGeoffrey.
1985. The Reason of Rules. New
York: Cambridge University
Press.
4.
CaveMartinVallettiTommaso.
2000. “Regulation and Competition in
Telecommunications,” in Regulatory Reform and
Competitiveness in Europe Volume 2: Vertical Issues edited by
GalliGiampaoloPelkmansJacques,
pp. 330–361.
Massachusetts: Edward Elgar
Publisher.
5.
CrandallRobert.
2001. Local and Long Distance Competition: Replacing
Regulation with Competition. Unpublished
manuscript.
6.
CrandallRobert.
1999. Managed Competition in U.S.
Telecommunications. American Enterprise Institute Working Paper
99–1.
7.
CrandallRobertHausmanJerry.
2000. “Competition in U.S. Telecommunications
Services: Effects of the 1996 Legislation,” in
Deregulation of Network Industries edited by PeltzmanSamWinstonClifford,
pp. 73–112. Washington
D.C.: Brookings Institution
Press.
8.
CrandallRobertHazlettThomas.
2000. Telecommunications Policy in the United States
and Canada. American Enterprise Institute Working Paper
00–9.
9.
CRTC. 1997.
Telecom Decision CRTC 97-8: Local
Competition.
10.
CRTC. 2001a.
Report to the Governor in Council: Status of Competition in Canadian
Telecommunications Market.
11.
CRTC. 2001b.
Order CRTC 2001-184. Local Competition: Sunset Clause for Near
Essential Facilities.
12.
De BoerDavid
BolesEvansLewis.
1996. “The Economic Efficiency of
Telecommunications in a Deregulated Market: The case of New
Zealand”, Economic Record, vol.
72, no. 216, March, pp.
24–35.
13.
ErgasHenry.
1996. Telecommunications Across the Tasman: A
Comparison of Regulatory Approaches and Economic Outcomes in Australia and
New Zealand. Centre for Research in Network Economics and
Communications Working Paper, University of
Auckland.
14.
Federal Communications
Commission. 2003. FCC Adopts New Rules for
Network Unbundling Obligations of Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers. Press release of FCC dated February 2003 accessible at
http://fcc.gov.
15.
GreenJamesTeeceDavid.
1998. “Four Approaches to Telecommunications:
The USA, the UK, Australia and New Zealand”,
Industrial and Corporate Change, Vol. 7,
no. 4, pp.
623–635.
16.
GrieveWillieLevinStanford.
1998. “Telecom Competition in Canada and the
United States: The Tortoise and the Hare,” in
Telephony, the Internet and the Media edited by
Mackie-MasonJefferyWatermanDavid,
pp. 269–286. New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
17.
HarrisRobertKraftC.
Jeffery. 1997.
“Meddling Through: Regulating Local Telephone Competition in
the United States,”Journal of Economic PerspectivesVol. 11, no. 4, Fall, pp.
93–122.
18.
HausmanJerry.
2001. “Regulation by TSLRIC: Economic Effects on
Investment and Innovation,” in Competition and
Regulation in Telecommunications edited by SidakJ.EngelChristophKniepsGunter,
pp. 51–68. Boston:
Kluwer Academic
Publishers.
19.
HayekFriedrich.
1948. Individualism and Economic Order.
Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
20.
HayekFriedrich.
1978. “Competition as a Discovery
Procedure,” in New Studies in Philosophy, Politics,
Economics and the History of Ideas, pp.
179–190.
London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul Limited.
21.
HausmanJerryLeonardGregorySidakJ.
2002. Does Bell Company Entry into Long-Distance
Telecommunications Benefit Consumers. Working paper,
Department of Economics,
MIT.
Information Technology and
Broadcasting Bureau. 2002. Legislative Council
Brief: Telecommunication Ordinance (Chapter 106).
Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of
the People's Republic of China.
24.
IngrahamAllanSidakJ.,
2003. Mandatory Unbundling, UNE-P, and the Cost of
Equity: Does the TELRIC Pricing Increase Risk for Incumbent Local Exchange
Carriers. Working paper, Criterion
Economics.
25.
JordeThomasSidakJ.TeeceDavid.
2000. “Innovation, Investment, and
Unbundling,”Yale Journal of Regulationvol. 17, no. 1, pp.
1–37.
26.
KahnAlfred.
1998. Letting Go: Deregulating the Process of
Deregulation. Michigan State University Utilities
Papers.
27.
KahnAlfred.
2001. Whom the Gods Would Destroy, or How Not to
Deregulate. Washington D.C.:
American Enterprise Institute
Press.
28.
KirznerIsrael.
2000. The Driving Force of the Market.
London:
Routledge.
29.
LeightonWayne.
2001. “Prescriptive Regulations and
Telecommunications: Old Lessons Not Learned”, Cato
JournalVolume 20, no.3, Winter, pp.
379–400.
30.
LevyBrianSpillerPable.
1993. The Institutional Foundations of Regulatory
Commitment. Cambridge:
Cambridge University
Press.
31.
MacCabePatrick.
1994. “New Zealand: The Unique Experiment in
Deregulation”, in Telecommunications in the Pacific
Basin: An Evolutionary Approach edited by NoamEliKomastuzakiSeisukeConnDouglas,
pp. 393–419. New
York: Oxford University
Press.
32.
McNultyPaul.
1968. “Economic Theory and the Meaning of
Competition,”Quarterly Journal of EconomicsVol. 82, November, pp.
639–656.
33.
Ministry of Economic
Development. 2000. Ministerial Inquiry in
Telecommunications. New Zealand
Government.
34.
Ministry of Economic
Development. 2001. New Zealand
Telecommunications 1987–2001. New Zealand
Government.
35.
MuellerMilton.
1998. “On the Frontier of Deregulation: New
Zealand Telecommunications and the Problem of Interconnecting Competing
Networks”, in GabelDavidWeimanDavid
edited Opening Networks To Competition: The Regulation and Pricing of
Access, pp. 107–135.
Boston: Kluwer Publishing
Company.
36.
New Zealand Institute for the Study
of Competition and Regulation Inc. (ISCR). 2000.
Telecommunications Inquiry Recommendations: Misconstrued efficiency
analysis belied by the evidence.
37.
OECDa. 2000.
Communications Outlook 2001: Telecommunications, United
States. Paris:
OECD.
38.
OECDb. 2000.
Communications Outlook 2001: Telecommunications,
Canada. Paris:
OECD.
39.
OFTA. 1997.
Policy Statement No. 7 (Revised): Interconnection and Related
Competition Issues.
40.
OFTA. 2001a.
Implementation of the Full Liberalization of the Local
Telecommunications Network Services Market from 1 January 2003.
OFTA Consultation Paper.
41.
OFTA. 2001b.
Review of the Telecommunications Authority's Statements No. 4, 5, 6,
7 (Revised) and 8 on Interconnection and Related Competition
Issues. OFTA Consultation Paper.
42.
OVUM. 1999.
Implementing Cost-Based Interconnect.
43.
SchumpeterJoseph.
1987. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy.
London:
Unwin.
44.
SpillerPabloCardilliCarlo.
1997. “The Frontier of Telecommunications
Deregulation: Small Countries Leading the Pack,”Journal of Economic PerspectivesVolume 11, no. 4, Fall, pp.
127–138.
45.
SidakJ.SpublerDaniel.
1997. Deregulatory Takings and the Regulatory
Contract. Cambridge:
Cambridge University
Press.
46.
SpublerDanielSidakJ.,
1997. “Network Access Pricing and
Deregulation”, Industrial and Corporate
Change, Vol. 6, no. 4, pp.
757–782.
47.
SwainPaul.
2000. Government announces “world leading”
telecommunications reform. Media
release, New Zealand
Government.
48.
TeeceDavidColemanMary.
1998. “The meaning of monopoly: Antitrust
analysis in high-technology industries”, The
Antitrust Bulletin, Fall/Winter, pp.
801–857.
49.
WeismanDennis.
2002. “Did the High Court reach an economic low
in Verizon v. FCC”, Review of Network
Industriesvol. 1, issue 2, September, pp.
90–105.
