Competition is good

 PAPUA New Guinea consumers have a right to choose which products they buy and are under no legal obligation to buy products made in this country. 

This may sound unpatriotic but when looking at the situation from a purely economic perspective a consumer will always be attracted to the less costly product provided it is comparable in quality. 

With the upsurge in business and retail in recent years the influx of cheaper products has been inevitable. 

If locally-based companies are up in arms about the pressure this has exert­ed on their profit margins, then they should see this as a challenge, not a threat. 

Our domestic industries must adjust and find the means to remain competitive and viable. 

That burden should not be to the detriment of the paying public. 

Some of the companies clamouring for a break should instead look at ways to transform their operations to be ahead of the game so to speak. 

These companies have for years done business in an environment devoid of competition and have virtually monopolised the trade in whatever commodity, service or product they specialised in.

But times have changed and with a growing economy, the “sink or swim” adage could not be truer. 

Soft drink producer Coca-Cola Amatil finds itself under some stress in the be­verage market with cheaper brands being imported into the country. 

The call has been made in the media by various representatives of the business community for Papua New Guineans to heed the “PNG Made” moniker on its pro­ducts and that should be a priority when considering what brands to buy at the supermarket. 

Another significant idea pushed by companies entrenched in the country is that choosing their goods over those of a foreign competitor safeguards jobs or potential jobs for Papua New Guineans. 

While this may be true in the overall picture, we cannot help but feel that any form of competition in an economy is ultimately beneficial to the consumer particularly in a developing country such as Papua New Guinea where the majority of consumers need to stretch their kina and maximise their buying power. 

As in the telecommunications sector, the introduction of a competitor against the then state-run Telikom-bemobile monopoly has opened up the world of mobiles, internet access and other social media to a wi­der spectrum of society.

That is a good a thing because everyone is benefiting from the accessibility. 

Prices are invariably reduced when you have a bu­yer’s market and when that only happens when there is more than one provider of the product or service. 

That means if a homemade product retails for K2 and the imported item of similar quality is being sold for just K2 the choice becomes one more of necessity than loyalty. 

Something is obviously wrong with our industries if what they are producing are more expensive than something imported from overseas. 

If government intervention is needed to address this situation, then so be it.

However, it would be deplorable for the state to come to the rescue of big businesses simply because they cannot or do not feel the need to adapt to the changing trends. 

Let us not forget that this country is still a very expensive place to live and do business in and that many services and products of similar quality (and more often than not poor quality) are over-priced because businesses here have enjoyed protection without helping the consumer. 

They say the presence of a competitive environment will do more to engender innovation, increase productivity and bring consumer-friendly change. 

We hope that people in this country can share in the positives of a freer market and balanced economy.