For much of the post-war period, the operation of the free market was seen as too capricious and too unpredictable to be allowed to determine the path and tempo of domestic economic development. The past decade, however, has witnessed a new veneration of the market as the key to growth and prosperity in the world. Free and unencumbered market forces have become the explanation for the boom among the Pacific tigers, the panacea for prosperity among developed countries, the textbook for restructuring former socialist republics and the last hope for the debt-encumbered nations of the Third World. The task of governments is to create conditions for vigorous market competition and to roll back previously imposed impediments and restrictions on factors of production. Unshackled domestic competition and the search for international competitive advantage guarantee the emergence of the robust and dynamic firms of the future. The ‘globalisation’ of the world economy is a symbol of their success and the ‘complex interdependence’ and ‘globalisation’ that accompany their activities transcend attempts at domestic interference.

In this vision, not surprisingly, there is little room for mollycoddled domestic monopolies (natural or contrived). These are credited with dulling the search for innovation and the ability to seize international opportunities. Michael Porter, in his influential study The Competitive Advantage of Nations, argues that:

One would not therefore expect cartels to be accompanied by economic growth. This seems to be confirmed by the 1930s, which are generally associated with the high point of cartel activity, and which coincided in Europe with slow rates of economic growth and an even slower expansion in trade. The decade was also characterised by government intervention which, if not actively promoting cartel formation, was at least neutral towards it. The 1950s, by contrast, have been identified with high rates of economic growth and even greater rates of trade expansion.