Late last year I wrote a blog post describing how the UK Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) was looking into Amazon’s investment in online food delivery company Deliveroo. Through this investment Amazon would become a minority shareholder in Deliveroo and be able to participate in the management of the company.
At this time the CMA had completed its initial investigation and decided that it had concerns about the impact the investment would have on competition. Since Amazon and Deliveroo did not then offer any proposal to address these concerns, the CMA referred the case for a full-blown investigation. They were not expected to make a decision until June. However, earlier this month the CMA announced that they would provisionally clear the investment.
This decision is a result of the impact coronavirus pandemic has had on the UK economy. The lockdown in the UK has seen many of the restaurants Deliveroo previously delivered from temporarily shutting down. In response, Deliveroo has significantly expanded the online grocery store delivery part of its business. Despite this, it appears that overall the pandemic has significantly reduced their revenues. This will clearly have a significant impact on gig economy workers who, more generally, are particularly affected by the current circumstances (see the earlier post on this site).
As a result of the pandemic, Deliveroo informed the CMA that they would go out of business without the investment from Amazon. This is very much in line with wider evidence of the impact the pandemic is already having on businesses. The CMA accepted that without additional funding Deliveroo would exit the market and that under the current circumstances it would be very difficult for them to secure an alternative source of funding. Furthermore, they regarded Deliveroo exiting the market as the worst outcome for competition, with Stuart McIntosh, Chair of the inquiry group, stating that:
This could mean that some customers are cut off from online food delivery altogether, with others facing higher prices or a reduction in service quality. Faced with that stark outcome, we feel the best course of action is to provisionally clear Amazon’s investment in Deliveroo.
The unprecedented circumstances created by the coronavirus pandemic provide a clear justification for the approach the CMA has taken. However, in the long-run there may be adverse consequences for competition. For example, the reduction in competition in online grocery store delivery that the CMA originally feared may materialise. In addition, it will be interesting to see whether the effect the pandemic has on Deliveroo’s business makes it more likely that Amazon will look to fully acquire them.
- Distinguishing between the short and long run, how do you think the market would change if Deliveroo were to exit?
- Why do you think it would be difficult for Deliveroo to find alternative sources of funding at the current time?
- What trade-offs would the CMA have had to consider when deciding to clear Amazon’s investment?
The online market for food delivery has grown rapidly grown in recent years. Deliveroo was founded in 2013 and has become one of the most recognised brands in this market. It now has a presence in around 100 towns and cities in the UK. In addition to offering customers restaurant cooked meals delivered straight to their homes, Deliveroo also provides a grocery store delivery service, for example in partnership with the Co-op.
Despite Deliveroo’s strong brand, the market leader in online restaurant delivery is actually Just Eat. Just Eat’s business model is built on it acting as an intermediary between restaurants and consumers who can use Just Eat’s website or app to order take-aways. This is in contrast to Deliveroo which also provides the delivery service. This means that Just Eat’s service is more viable in smaller towns. Deliveroo’s other main rival is Uber Eats.
Having been founded in the UK, Deliveroo has subsequently expanded its operations to around 10 other countries. However, this global expansion resulted in Deliveroo making losses of almost £200m in 2017. In part as a result of these losses, Deliveroo decided to look for new investment and by May 2019 had raised £450m. Deliveroo intends to use this money to fund its continued international expansion and to improve the service it provides. This includes growing its delivery-only kitchens business, which enables it to be less reliant on links with traditional restaurants.
Amazon was one of the big investors in Deliveroo, although the exact amount it invested is unknown. Interestingly, both Amazon and Uber have previously made approaches to buy Deliveroo outright. For Amazon this latest move may be a first step before looking to fully acquire Deliveroo.
Despite this not being a full merger or acquisition, it was still investigated by the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Its remit allows it also to examine situations where an enterprise gains a ‘material influence over the policy of another’. This was the case with Amazon’s investment which, despite only allowing it to become a minority shareholder, enables it to participate in the management of the company.
Last week the CMA announced that it had completed its initial investigation and that it had concerns about the investment. Andrea Gomes de Silva, CMA Executive Director, stated that:
If the deal were to proceed in its current form, there’s a real risk that it could leave customers, restaurants and grocers facing higher prices and lower quality services as these markets develop. This is because the significant competition which could otherwise exist between Amazon and Deliveroo would be reduced.
The CMA has two specific concerns. Firstly, it is worried that competition in online restaurant delivery will be harmed. Amazon had started competing with Deliveroo in this market in 2016 when it launched Amazon Restaurants. However, it shut this down two years later. The CMA uncovered internal documents from Amazon suggesting that it continued to monitor closely this market. Therefore, the CMA believed that Amazon re-entering the market was a distinct possibility and argued that this would be a substantial boost for competition. The CMA’s concern was that its investment in Deliveroo would make this re-entry less likely.
On the other hand, there is a counterargument to the CMA’s which says that Amazon’s entry through investment, even if only at this time resulting in minority ownership of Deliveroo, could itself boost competition. This is an important trade-off the CMA should take into account.
Secondly, the CMA is worried that Amazon’s investment will also harm competition in online grocery store delivery. Here, Amazon and Deliveroo are two of the leading players in the market. The CMA believes that, as the market grows in the future, competition between the two could intensify. However, the investment in Deliveroo would put this in jeopardy.
At the time of writing, Amazon and Deliveroo have five working days to offer proposals to the CMA to address these competition concerns. It will be interesting to see how they respond to the CMA and whether a full-blown investigation follows. If it does, this may eventually lead to the CMA blocking Amazon’s investment.
POSTSCRIPT: Amazon and Deliveroo did not offer a proposal to address the competition concerns and so on 27th December the CMA referred the case for a full-blown investigation.
To be continued.
- What are the key features of competition in the online market for food delivery?
- What are the pros and cons of Just Eat’s business model in comparison with Deliveroo’s?
- What are the potential advantages Amazon has over the other players in the online market for food delivery?
Economists are often criticised for making inaccurate forecasts and for making false assumptions. Their analysis is frequently dismissed by politicians when it contradicts their own views.
But is this fair? Have economists responded to the realities of the global economy and to the behaviour of people, firms, institutions and government as they respond to economic circumstances? The answer is a qualified yes.
Behavioural economics is increasingly challenging the simple assumption that people are ‘rational’, in the sense that they maximise their self interest by weighing up the marginal costs and benefits of alternatives open to them. And macroeconomic models are evolving to take account of a range of drivers of global growth and the business cycle.
The linked article and podcast below look at the views of 2019 Nobel Prize-winning economist Esther Duflo. She has challenged some of the traditional assumptions of economics about the nature of rationality and what motivates people. But her work is still very much in the tradition of economists. She examines evidence and sees how people respond to incentives and then derives policy implications from the analysis.
Take the case of the mobility of labour. She examines why people who lose their jobs may not always move to a new one if it’s in a different town. Partly this is for financial reasons – moving is costly and housing may be more expensive where the new job is located. Partly, however, it is for reasons of identity. Many people are attached to where they currently live. They may be reluctant to leave family and friends and familiar surroundings and hope that a new job will turn up – even if it means a cut in wages. This is not irrational; it just means that people are driven by more than simply wages.
Duflo is doing what economists typically do – examining behaviour in the light of evidence. In her case, she is revisiting the concept of rationality to take account of evidence on what motivates people and the way they behave.
In the light of workers’ motivation, she considers the implications for the gains from trade. Is free trade policy necessarily desirable if people lose their jobs because of cheap imports from China and other developing countries where labour costs are low?
The answer is not a clear yes or no, as import-competing industries are only part of the story. If protectionist policies are pursued, other countries may retaliate with protectionist policies themselves. In such cases, people working in the export sector may lose their jobs.
She also looks at how people may respond to a rise or cut in tax rates. Again the answer is not clear cut and an examination of empirical evidence is necessary to devise appropriate policy. Not only is there an income and substitution effect from tax changes, but people are motivated to work by factors other than take-home pay. Likewise, firms are encouraged to invest by factors other than the simple post-tax profitability of investment.
- In traditional ‘neoclassical’ economics, what is meant by ‘rationality’ in terms of (a) consumer behaviour; (b) producer behaviour?
- How might the concept of rationality be expanded to take into account a whole range of factors other than the direct costs and benefits of a decision?
- What is meant by bounded rationality?
- What would be the effect on workers’ willingness to work more or fewer hours as a result of a cut in the marginal income tax rate if (a) the income effect was greater than the substitution effect; (b) the substitution effect was greater than the income effect? Would your answers to (a) and (b) be the opposite in the case of a rise in the marginal income tax rate?
- Give some arguments that you consider to be legitimate for imposing controls on imports in (a) the short run; (b) the long run. How might you counter these arguments from a free-trade perspective?
With university fees for home students in England of £9250 per year and with many students receiving maintenance loans of around £9000 per year, many students are graduating with debts in excess of £50 000. Loans are repaid at a marginal rate of 9% on incomes over £25 716.
Many students also study for a masters degree. The average fee for a taught, classroom-based masters (MA) is £7392 and for a laboratory-based masters (MSc) is £8167 but can be considerably higher at some prestigious universities where demand is high. Government loans of up to £10 906 are available to contribute towards fees and maintenance. These are paid back at a marginal rate of 6% for people earning over £21 000, giving a combined marginal rate of 15% for first and masters degrees.
For high earners on the 40% income tax rate, the combined marginal rate of payment out of income is 40% tax, plus 2% national insurance, plus 15% for those with undergraduate and masters loans. This gives a combined marginal rate of 57%.
Average student debt in England is higher even than in the USA, where the average is $37 000. US university courses are more expensive than in the UK, costing an average of $34 000 per year in tuition alone. But undergraduates can borrow less. They can borrow between $5500 and $12 500 per year in federal loans towards both fees and maintenance, and some private loans are also available. Most students do some paid work during their studies to make up the difference or rely on parents contributing. Parental contributions mean that students from poor families end up owing more. According to a Guardian article:
Race is a huge factor. Black students owe an average of $7400 more than white students when they graduate, the Brookings Institution found. After graduation, the debt gap continues to widen. Four years after graduation, black graduates owe an average of nearly $53 000 – nearly double that of white graduates.
Student debt looks to become one of the key issues in the 2020 US presidential election.
Pressure to cancel student fees and debt in the USA
Most of the Democratic candidates are promising to address student fees and debt. Student debt, they claim, places an unfair burden on the younger generation and makes it hard for people to buy a house, or car or other major consumer durables. This also has a dampening effect on aggregate demand.
The most radical proposal comes from Bernie Sanders. He has vowed, if elected, to abolish student fees and to cancel all undergraduate and graduate debt of all Americans. Other candidates are promising to cut fees and/or debt.
Although most politicians and commentators agree that the USA has a serious problem of student debt, there is little agreement on what, if anything, to do about it. There are already a number of ways in which student debt can be written off or reduced. For example, if you work in the public sector for more than 10 years, remaining debt will be cancelled. However, none of the existing schemes is as radical as that being proposed by many Democrats.
Criticisms of the Democrats’ plans are mainly of two types.
The first is the sheer cost. Overall debt is around $1.6tn. What is more, making student tuition free would place a huge ongoing burden on government finances. Bernie Sanders proposes introducing a financial transactions tax on stock trading. This would be similar to a Tobin tax (sometimes dubbed a ‘Robin Hood tax’) and would include a 0.5% tax on stock transactions, a 0.1% tax on bond trades and a 0.005% tax on transactions in derivatives. He argues that the public bailed out the financial sector in 2008 and that it is now the turn of the financial sector to come to the aid of students and graduates.
The other type of criticism concerns the incentive effects of the proposal. The core of the criticism is that loan forgiveness involves moral hazard.
The moral hazard of loan forgiveness
The argument is that cancelling debt, or the promise to do so, encourages people to take on more debt. Generally, moral hazard occurs when people are protected from the consequences of their actions and are thus encouraged to make riskier decisions. For example, if you are ensured against theft, you may be less careful with your belongings. As the Orange County Register article linked below states:
If the taxpayers pay the debts of everyone with outstanding student loans, how will that affect the decisions made by current students thinking about their choices for financing higher education? What’s the message? Borrow as much as you can and wait for the debt to be canceled during the next presidential primary campaign?
Not only would more students be encouraged to go to college, but they would be encouraged to apply for more costly courses if they were free.
Universities would be encouraged to exaggerate their costs to warrant higher fees charged to the government. The government (federal, state or local) would have to be very careful in auditing courses to ensure costs were genuine. Universities could end up being squeezed for finance as government may try to cut payments by claiming that courses were overpriced.
Even if fees were not abolished, cancelling debts would encourage students to take on larger debt, if that was to be cleared at some point in the future. What is more, students (or their parents) who could afford to pay, would choose to borrow the money instead.
But many countries do have free or highly subsidised higher education. Universities are given grants which are designed to reflect fair costs.
- Assess the arguments for abolishing or substantially reducing student fees.
- Assess the arguments against abolishing or substantially reducing student fees.
- Assess the arguments for writing off or substantially reducing student debt.
- Assess the arguments against writing off or substantially reducing student debt.
- If it were decided to cancel student debt, would it be fair to pay students back for any debt they had already paid off?
- Does tackling the problem of student debt necessarily lead to a redistribution of wealth/income?
- Give some other examples of moral hazard.
- If student fees were abolished, would there be any problem of adverse selection? If so, how could this be overcome?
- Find out what the main UK parties are advocating about student fees and debt in the nations of the UK for home and non-home students. Provide a critique of each of their policies.
Firms are increasingly having to take into account the interests of a wide range of stakeholders, such as consumers, workers, the local community and society in general (see the blog, Evolving Economics). However, with many firms, the key stakeholders that influence decisions are shareholders. And because many shareholders are footloose and not committed to any one company, their main interests are short-term profit and share value. This leads to under-investment and too little innovation. It has also led to excessive pay for senior executives, which for many years has grown substantially faster than the pay of their employees. Indeed, executive pay in the UK is now, per pound of turnover, the highest in the world.
So is there an alternative model of capitalism, which better serves the interests of a wider range of stakeholders? One model is that of employee ownership. Perhaps the most famous example of this is the John Lewis Partnership, which owns both the department stores and the Waitrose chain of supermarkets. As the partnership’s site claims, ‘when you’re part of it, you put your heart into it’. Although the John Lewis Partnership is the largest in the UK, there are over 330 employee-owned businesses across the UK, with over 200 000 employee owners contributing some £30bn per year to UK GDP. Again, to quote the John Lewis site:
Businesses range from manufacturers, to community health services, to insurance brokers. Together they deliver 4% of UK GDP annually, with this contribution growing. They are united by an ethos that puts people first, involving the workforce in key decision-making and realising the potential and commitment of their employees.
A recent example of a company moving, at least partly, in this direction is BT, which has announced that that every one of its 100 000 employees will get shares worth £500 every year. Employees will need to hold their shares for at least three years before they can sell them. The aim is to motivate staff and help the company achieve a turnaround from its recent lacklustre performance, which had resulted in its laying off 13 000 of its 100 000-strong workforce.
Another recent example of a company adopting employee ownership is Richer Sounds, the retail TV and hi-fi chain. Its owner and founder, Julian Richer, announced that he had transferred 60% of his shares into a John Lewis-style trust for the chain’s 531 employees. In addition to owning 60% of the company, employees will receive £1000 for every year they have worked for the retailer. A new advisory council, made up of current staff, will advise the management board, which is taking over the running of the firm from Richer.
According to the Employee Ownership Association (EOA), a further 50 businesses are preparing to follow suit and adopt forms of employee ownership. As The Conversation article linked below states:
As a form of stakeholder capitalism, the evidence shows that employee ownership boosts employee commitment and motivation, which leads to greater innovation and productivity.
Indeed, a study of employee ownership models in the US published in April found it narrowed gender and racial wealth gaps. Surveying 200 employees from 21 companies with employee ownership plans, Joseph Blasi and his colleagues at Rutgers University found employees had significantly more wealth than the average US worker.
The researchers also found that the participatory management practices that accompanied the employee ownership schemes led to employees improving their communication skills and learning management skills, which had helped them make better financial decisions at home.
But, although employee ownership brings benefits, not only to the employees themselves, but also more widely to society, there is no simple mechanism for achieving it when shareholders are unlikely to want to relinquish their shares. Employee buyout schemes require funding; and banks are often cautious about providing such funding. What is more, there needs to be an employee trust overseeing the running of the company which takes a long-term perspective and not just that of current employees, who might otherwise be tempted to sell the company to another seeking to take it over.
- What are the main benefits of employee ownership?
- Are there any disadvantages of employee ownership and, if so, what are they?
- What are the main barriers to the adoption of employee ownership?
- What are the main recommendations from The Ownership Effect Inquiry? (See linked report above.)
- What are the findings of the responses to the employee share ownership questions in the US General Social Survey (GSS)? (See linked Global Banking & Finance Review article above.)