A. THE PHILOSOPHY OF COMPETITION
The aims of competition (anti-trust) laws are to ensure that
consumers pay the lowest possible price (=the most efficient price) coupled with
the highest quality of the goods and services which they consume. This,
according to current economic theories, can be achieved only through effective
competition. Competition not only reduces particular prices of specific goods
and services - it also tends to have a deflationary effect by reducing the
general price level. It pits consumers against producers, producers against
other producers (in the battle to win the heart of consumers) and even consumers
against consumers (for example in the healthcare sector in the USA). This
everlasting conflict does the miracle of increasing quality with lower prices.
Think about the vast improvement on both scores in electrical appliances. The
VCR and PC of yesteryear cost thrice as much and provided one third the
functions at one tenth the speed.
Competition has innumerable advantages:
- It encourages manufacturers and service providers to be more efficient, to
better respond to the needs of their customers, to innovate, to initiate, to
venture. In professional words: it optimizes the allocation of resources at
the firm level and, as a result, throughout the national economy. More simply:
producers do not waste resources (capital), consumers and businesses pay less
for the same goods and services and, as a result, consumption grows to the
benefit of all involved.
- The other beneficial effect seems, at first sight, to be an adverse one:
competition weeds out the failures, the incompetents, the inefficient, the fat
and slow to respond. Competitors pressure one another to be more efficient,
leaner and meaner. This is the very essence of capitalism. It is wrong to say
that only the consumer benefits. If a firm improves itself, re-engineers its
production processes, introduces new management techniques, modernizes - in
order to fight the competition, it stands to reason that it will reap the
rewards. Competition benefits the economy, as a whole, the consumers and other
producers by a process of natural economic selection where only the fittest
survive. Those who are not fit to survive die out and cease to waste the rare
resources of humanity.
Thus, paradoxically, the poorer the country, the less resources it has - the
more it is in need of competition. Only competition can secure the proper and
most efficient use of its scarce resources, a maximization of its output and the
maximal welfare of its citizens (consumers). Moreover, we tend to forget that
the biggest consumers are businesses (firms). If the local phone company is
inefficient (because no one competes with it, being a monopoly) - firms will
suffer the most: higher charges, bad connections, lost time, effort, money and
business. If the banks are dysfunctional (because there is no foreign
competition), they will not properly service their clients and firms will
collapse because of lack of liquidity. It is the business sector in poor
countries which should head the crusade to open the country to competition.
Unfortunately, the first discernible results of the introduction of free
marketry are unemployment and business closures. People and firms lack the
vision, the knowledge and the wherewithal needed to support competition. They
fiercely oppose it and governments throughout the world bow to protectionist
measures. To no avail. Closing a country to competition will only exacerbate the
very conditions which necessitate its opening up. At the end of such a wrong
path awaits economic disaster and the forced entry of competitors. A country
which closes itself to the world - will be forced to sell itself cheaply as its
economy will become more and more inefficient, less and less non-competitive.
The Competition Laws aim to establish fairness of commercial conduct among
entrepreneurs and competitors which are the sources of said competition and
Experience - later buttressed by research - helped to establish the following
- There should be no barriers to the entry of new market players (barring
criminal and moral barriers to certain types of activities and to certain
goods and services offered)
- A larger scale of operation does introduce economies of scale (and thus
lowers prices). This, however, is not infinitely true. There is a Minimum
Efficient Scale - MES - beyond which prices will begin to rise due to
monopolization of the markets. This MES was empirically fixed at 10% of the
market in any one good or service. In other words: companies should be
encouraged to capture up to 10% of their market (=to lower prices) and
discouraged to cross this barrier, lest prices tend to rise again.
- Efficient competition does not exist when a market is controlled by less
than 10 firms with big size differences. An oligopoly should be declared
whenever 4 firms control more than 40% of the market and the biggest of them
controls more than 12% of it.
- A competitive price will be comprised of a minimal cost plus an
equilibrium profit which does not encourage either an exit of firms (because
it is too low), nor their entry (because it is too high).
Left to their own devices, firms tend to liquidate competitors (predation),
buy them out or collude with them to raise prices. The 1890 Sherman Antitrust
Act in the USA forbade the latter (section 1) and prohibited monopolization or
dumping as a method to eliminate competitors. Later acts (Clayton, 1914 and the
Federal Trade Commission Act of the same year) added forbidden activities: tying
arrangements, boycotts, territorial divisions, non-competitive mergers, price
discrimination, exclusive dealing, unfair acts, practices and methods. Both
consumers and producers who felt offended were given access to the Justice
Department and to the FTC or the right to sue in a federal court and be eligible
to receive treble damages.
It is only fair to mention the "intellectual competition", which opposes the
above premises. Many important economists thought (and still do) that
competition laws represent an unwarranted and harmful intervention of the State
in the markets. Some believed that the State should own important industries (J.K.
Galbraith), others - that industries should be encouraged to grow because only
size guarantees survival, lower prices and innovation (Ellis Hawley). Yet others
supported the cause of laissez faire (Marc Eisner).
These three antithetical approaches are, by no means, new. One led to
socialism and communism, the other to corporatism and monopolies and the third
to jungle-ization of the market (what the Europeans derisively call: the
B. HISTORICAL AND LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS
Why does the State involve itself in the machinations of the free market?
Because often markets fail or are unable or unwilling to provide goods,
services, or competition. The purpose of competition laws is to secure a
competitive marketplace and thus protect the consumer from unfair,
anti-competitive practices. The latter tend to increase prices and reduce the
availability and quality of goods and services offered to the consumer.
Such state intervention is usually done by establishing a governmental
Authority with full powers to regulate the markets and ensure their fairness and
accessibility to new entrants. Lately, international collaboration between such
authorities yielded a measure of harmonization and coordinated action
(especially in cases of trusts which are the results of mergers and
Yet, competition law embodies an inherent conflict: while protecting local
consumers from monopolies, cartels and oligopolies - it ignores the very same
practices when directed at foreign consumers. Cartels related to the country's
foreign trade are allowed even under GATT/WTO rules (in cases of dumping or
excessive export subsidies). Put simply: governments regard acts which are
criminal as legal if they are directed at foreign consumers or are part of the
process of foreign trade.
A country such as Macedonia - poor and in need of establishing its export
sector - should include in its competition law at least two protective measures
against these discriminatory practices:
- Blocking Statutes - which prohibit its legal entities from collaborating
with legal procedures in other countries to the extent that this collaboration
adversely affects the local export industry.
- Clawback Provisions - which will enable the local courts to order the
refund of any penalty payment decreed or imposed by a foreign court on a local
legal entity and which exceeds actual damage inflicted by unfair trade
practices of said local legal entity. US courts, for instance, are allowed to
impose treble damages on infringing foreign entities. The clawback provisions
are used to battle this judicial aggression.
Competition policy is the antithesis of industrial policy. The former wishes
to ensure the conditions and the rules of the game - the latter to recruit the
players, train them and win the game. The origin of the former is in the 19th
century USA and from there it spread to (really was imposed on) Germany and
Japan, the defeated countries in the 2nd World War. The European Community (EC)
incorporated a competition policy in articles 85 and 86 of the Rome Convention
and in Regulation 17 of the Council of Ministers, 1962.
Still, the two most important economic blocks of our time have different
goals in mind when implementing competition policies. The USA is more interested
in economic (and econometric) results while the EU emphasizes social, regional
development and political consequences. The EU also protects the rights of small
businesses more vigorously and, to some extent, sacrifices intellectual property
rights on the altar of fairness and the free movement of goods and services.
Put differently: the USA protects the producers and the EU shields the
consumer. The USA is interested in the maximization of output at whatever social
cost - the EU is interested in the creation of a just society, a liveable
community, even if the economic results will be less than optimal.
There is little doubt that Macedonia should follow the EU example.
Geographically, it is a part of Europe and, one day, will be integrated in the
EU. It is socially sensitive, export oriented, its economy is negligible and its
consumers are poor, it is besieged by monopolies and oligopolies.
In my view, its competition laws should already incorporate the important
elements of the EU (Community) legislation and even explicitly state so in the
preamble to the law. Other, mightier, countries have done so. Italy, for
instance, modelled its Law number 287 dated 10/10/90 "Competition and Fair
Trading Act" after the EC legislation. The law explicitly says so.
The first serious attempt at international harmonization of national
antitrust laws was the Havana Charter of 1947. It called for the creation of an
umbrella operating organization (the International Trade Organization or "ITO")
and incorporated an extensive body of universal antitrust rules in nine of its
articles. Members were required to "prevent business practices affecting
international trade which restrained competition, limited access to markets, or
fostered monopolistic control whenever such practices had harmful effects on the
expansion of production or trade". the latter included:
- Fixing prices, terms, or conditions to be observed in dealing with others
in the purchase, sale, or lease of any product;
- Excluding enterprises from, or allocating or dividing, any territorial
market or field of business activity, or allocating customers, or fixing sales
quotas or purchase quotas;
- Discriminating against particular enterprises;
- Limiting production or fixing production quotas;
- Preventing by agreement the development or application of technology or
invention, whether patented or non-patented; and
- Extending the use of rights under intellectual property protections to
matters which, according to a member's laws and regulations, are not within
the scope of such grants, or to products or conditions of production, use, or
sale which are not likewise the subject of such grants.
GATT 1947 was a mere bridging agreement but the Havana Charter languished and
died due to the objections of a protectionist US Senate.
There are no antitrust/competition rules either in GATT 1947 or in GATT/WTO
1994, but their provisions on antidumping and countervailing duty actions and
government subsidies constitute some elements of a more general
GATT, though, has an International Antitrust Code Writing Group which
produced a "Draft International Antitrust Code" (10/7/93). It is reprinted in
§II, 64 Antitrust & Trade Regulation Reporter (BNA), Special Supplement at S-3
Four principles guided the (mostly German) authors:
- National laws should be applied to solve international competition
- Parties, regardless of origin, should be treated as locals;
- A minimum standard for national antitrust rules should be set (stricter
measures would be welcome); and
- The establishment of an international authority to settle disputes between
parties over antitrust issues.
The 29 (well-off) members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) formed rules governing the harmonization and coordination of
international antitrust/competition regulation among its member nations ("The
Revised Recommendation of the OECD Council Concerning Cooperation between Member
Countries on Restrictive Business Practices Affecting International Trade," OECD
Doc. No. C(86)44 (Final) (June 5, 1986), also in 25 International Legal
Materials 1629 (1986). A revised version was reissued. According to it, "
…Enterprises should refrain from abuses of a dominant market position; permit
purchasers, distributors, and suppliers to freely conduct their businesses;
refrain from cartels or restrictive agreements; and consult and cooperate with
competent authorities of interested countries".
An agency in one of the member countries tackling an antitrust case, usually
notifies another member country whenever an antitrust enforcement action may
affect important interests of that country or its nationals (see: OECD
Recommendations on Predatory Pricing, 1989).
The United States has bilateral antitrust agreements with Australia, Canada,
and Germany, which was followed by a bilateral agreement with the EU in 1991.
These provide for coordinated antitrust investigations and prosecutions. The
United States thus reduced the legal and political obstacles which faced its
extraterritorial prosecutions and enforcement. The agreements require one party
to notify the other of imminent antitrust actions, to share relevant
information, and to consult on potential policy changes. The EU-U.S. Agreement
contains a "comity" principle under which each side promises to take into
consideration the other's interests when considering antitrust prosecutions. A
similar principle is at the basis of Chapter 15 of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) - cooperation on antitrust matters.
The United Nations Conference on Restrictive Business Practices adopted a
code of conduct in 1979/1980 that was later integrated as a U.N. General
Assembly Resolution [U.N. Doc. TD/RBP/10 (1980)]: "The Set of Multilaterally
Agreed Equitable Principles and Rules".
According to its provisions, "independent enterprises should refrain from
certain practices when they would limit access to markets or otherwise unduly
The following business practices are prohibited:
- Agreements to fix prices (including export and import prices);
- Collusive tendering
- Market or customer allocation (division) arrangements;
- Allocation of sales or production by quota;
- Collective action to enforce arrangements, e.g., by concerted refusals to
- Concerted refusal to sell to potential importers; and
- Collective denial of access to an arrangement, or association, where such
access is crucial to competition and such denial might hamper it. In addition,
businesses are forbidden to engage in the abuse of a dominant position in the
market by limiting access to it or by otherwise restraining competition by:
- Predatory behaviour towards competitors
- Discriminatory pricing or terms or conditions in the supply or purchase
of goods or services
- Mergers, takeovers, joint ventures, or other acquisitions of control
- Fixing prices for exported goods or resold imported goods
- Import restrictions on legitimately-marked trademarked goods
- Unjustifiably - whether partially or completely - refusing to deal on an
enterprise's customary commercial terms, making the supply of goods or
services dependent on restrictions on the distribution or manufacturer of
other goods, imposing restrictions on the resale or exportation of the same
or other goods, and purchase "tie-ins."
C. ANTI - COMPETITIVE STRATEGIES
Any Competition Law in Macedonia should, in my view, excplicitly include
strict prohibitions of the following practices (further details can be found in
Porter's book - "Competitive Strategy").
These practices characterize the Macedonian market. They influence the
Macedonian economy by discouraging foreign investors, encouraging inefficiencies
and mismanagement, sustaining artificially high prices, misallocating very
scarce resources, increasing unemployment, fostering corrupt and criminal
practices and, in general, preventing the growth that Macedonia could have
Strategies' for Monopolization
Exclude competitors from distribution channels - this is common practice in
many countries. Open threats are made by the manufacturers of popular products:
"If you distribute my competitor's products - you cannot distribute mine. So,
choose." Naturally, retail outlets, dealers and distributors will always prefer
the popular product to the new. This practice not only blocks competition - but
also innovation, trade and choice or variety.
Buy up competitors and potential competitors - There is nothing wrong with
that. Under certain circumstances, this is even desirable. Think about the
Banking System: it is always better to have fewer banks with bigger capital than
many small banks with capital inadequacy (remember the TAT affair). So,
consolidation is sometimes welcome, especially where scale represents viability
and a higher degree of consumer protection. The line is thin and is composed of
both quantitative and qualitative criteria. One way to measure the desirability
of such mergers and acquisitions (M&A) is the level of market concentration
following the M&A. Is a new monopoly created? Will the new entity be able to set
prices unperturbed? stamp out its other competitors? If so, it is not desirable
and should be prevented.
Every merger in the USA must be approved by the antitrust authorities. When
multinationals merge, they must get the approval of all the competition
authorities in all the territories in which they operate. The purchase of
"Intuit" by "Microsoft" was prevented by the antitrust department (the
"Trust-busters"). A host of airlines was conducting a drawn out battle with
competition authorities in the EU, UK and the USA lately.
Use predatory [below-cost] pricing (also known as dumping) to eliminate
competitors - This tactic is mostly used by manufacturers in developing or
emerging economies and in Japan. It consists of "pricing the competition out of
the markets". The predator sells his products at a price which is lower even
than the costs of production. The result is that he swamps the market, driving
out all other competitors. Once he is left alone - he raises his prices back to
normal and, often, above normal. The dumper loses money in the dumping operation
and compensates for these losses by charging inflated prices after having the
Raise scale-economy barriers - Take unfair advantage of size and the
resulting scale economies to force conditions upon the competition or upon the
distribution channels. In many countries Big Industry lobbies for a legislation
which will fit its purposes and exclude its (smaller) competitors.
Increase "market power (share) and hence profit potential"
Study the industry's "potential" structure and ways it can be made less
competitive - Even thinking about sin or planning it should be prohibited. Many
industries have "think tanks" and experts whose sole function is to show the
firm the way to minimize competition and to increase its market shares.
Admittedly, the line is very thin: when does a Marketing Plan become criminal?
Arrange for a "rise in entry barriers to block later entrants" and "inflict
losses on the entrant" - This could be done by imposing bureaucratic obstacles
(of licencing, permits and taxation), scale hindrances (no possibility to
distribute small quantities), "old boy networks" which share political clout and
research and development, using intellectual property right to block new
entrants and other methods too numerous to recount. An effective law should
block any action which prevents new entry to a market.
Buy up firms in other industries "as a base from which to change industry
structures" there - This is a way of securing exclusive sources of supply of raw
materials, services and complementing products. If a company owns its suppliers
and they are single or almost single sources of supply - in effect it has
monopolized the market. If a software company owns another software company with
a product which can be incorporated in its own products - and the two have
substantial market shares in their markets - then their dominant positions will
reinforce each other's.
"Find ways to encourage particular competitors out of the industry" - If you
can't intimidate your competitors you might wish to "make them an offer that
they cannot refuse". One way is to buy them, to bribe out the key personnel, to
offer tempting opportunities in other markets, to swap markets (I will give my
market share in a market which I do not really care about and you will give me
your market share in a market in which we are competitors). Other ways are to
give the competitors assets, distribution channels and so on providing that they
collude in a cartel.
"Send signals to encourage competition to exit" the industry - Such signals
could be threats, promises, policy measures, attacks on the integrity and
quality of the competitor, announcement that the company has set a certain
market share as its goal (and will, therefore, not tolerate anyone trying to
prevent it from attaining this market share) and any action which directly or
indirectly intimidates or convinces competitors to leave the industry. Such an
action need not be positive - it can be negative, need not be done by the
company - can be done by its political proxies, need not be planned - could be
accidental. The results are what matters.
Macedonia's Competition Law should outlaw the following, as well:
Raise "mobility" barriers to keep competitors in the least-profitable
segments of the industry - This is a tactic which preserves the appearance of
competition while subverting it. Certain, usually less profitable or too small
to be of interest, or with dim growth prospects, or which are likely to be
opened to fierce domestic and foreign competition are left to the competition.
The more lucrative parts of the markets are zealously guarded by the company.
Through legislation, policy measures, withholding of technology and know-how -
the firm prevents its competitors from crossing the river into its protected
Let little firms "develop" an industry and then come in and take it over -
This is precisely what Netscape is saying that Microsoft is doing to it.
Netscape developed the now lucrative Browser Application market. Microsoft was
wrong in discarding the Internet as a fad. When it was found to be wrong -
Microsoft reversed its position and came up with its own (then, technologically
inferior) browser (the Internet Explorer). It offered it free (sound
suspiciously like dumping) to buyers of its operating system, "Windows".
Inevitably it captured more than 30% of the market, crowding out Netscape. It is
the view of the antitrust authorities in the USA that Microsoft utilized its
dominant position in one market (that of the Operating Systems) to annihilate a
competitor in another (that of the browsers).
Engage in "promotional warfare" by "attacking shares of others" - This is
when the gist of a marketing or advertising campaign is to capture the market
share of the competition. Direct attack is then made on the competition just in
order to abolish it. To sell more in order to maximize profits, is allowed and
meritorious - to sell more in order to eliminate the competition is wrong and
should be disallowed.
Use price retaliation to "discipline" competitors - Through dumping or even
unreasonable and excessive discounting. This could be achieved not only through
the price itself. An exceedingly long credit term offered to a distributor or to
a buyer is a way of reducing the price. The same applies to sales, promotions,
vouchers, gifts. They are all ways to reduce the effective price. The customer
calculates the money value of these benefits and deducts them from the price.
Establish a "pattern" of severe retaliation against challengers to
"communicate commitment" to resist efforts to win market share - Again, this
retaliation can take a myriad of forms: malicious advertising, a media campaign,
adverse legislation, blocking distribution channels, staging a hostile bid in
the stock exchange just in order to disrupt the proper and orderly management of
the competitor. Anything which derails the competitor whenever he makes a
headway, gains a larger market share, launches a new product - can be construed
as a "pattern of retaliation".
Maintain excess capacity to be used for "fighting" purposes to discipline
ambitious rivals - Such excess capacity could belong to the offending firm or -
through cartel or other arrangements - to a group of offending firms.
Publicize one's "commitment to resist entry" into the market
Publicize the fact that one has a "monitoring system" to detect any
aggressive acts of competitors
Announce in advance "market share targets" to intimidate competitors into
yielding share their market share
Proliferate Brand Names
Contract with customers to "meet or match all price cuts (offered by the
competition)" thus denying rivals any hope of growth through price competition
Get a big enough market share to "corner" the "learning curve," thus denying
rivals an opportunity to become efficient - Efficiency is gained by an increase
in market share. Such an increase leads to new demands imposed by the market, to
modernization, innovation, the introduction of new management techniques
(example: Just In Time inventory management), joint ventures, training of
personnel, technology transfers, development of proprietary intellectual
property and so on. Deprived of a growing market share - the competitor will not
feel pressurized to learn and to better itself. In due time, it will dwindle and
Acquire a wall of "defensive" patents to deny competitors access to the
"Harvest" market position in a no-growth industry by raising prices, lowering
quality, and stopping all investment and advertising in it
Create or encourage capital scarcity - by colluding with sources of financing
(e.g., regional, national, or investment banks), by absorbing any capital
offered by the State, by the capital markets, through the banks, by spreading
malicious news which serve to lower the credit-worthiness of the competition, by
legislating special tax and financing loopholes and so on.
Introduce high advertising-intensity - This is very difficult to measure.
There could be no objective criteria which will not go against the grain of the
fundamental right to freedom of expression. However, truth in advertising should
be strictly imposed. Practices such as dragging a competitor through the mud or
derogatorily referring to its products or services in advertising campaigns
should be banned and the ban should be enforced.
Proliferate "brand names" to make it too expensive for small firms to grow -
By creating and maintaining a host of absolutely unnecessary brandnames, the
competition's brandnames are crowded out. Again, this cannot be legislated
against. A firm has the right to create and maintain as many brandnames as it
wishes. The market will exact a price and thus punish such a company because,
ultimately, its own brandname will suffer from the proliferation.
Get a "corner" (control, manipulate and regulate) on raw materials,
government licenses, subsidies, and patents (and, of course, prevent the
competition from having access to them).
Build up "political capital" with government bodies; overseas, get
"protection" from "the host government".
Practice a "preemptive strategy" by capturing all capacity expansion in the
industry (simply buying it, leasing it or taking over the companies that own or
This serves to "deny competitors enough residual demand". Residual demand, as
we previously explained, causes firms to be efficient. Once efficient, develop
enough power to "credibly retaliate" and thereby "enforce an orderly expansion
process" to prevent overcapacity
Create "switching" costs - Through legislation, bureaucracy, control of the
media, cornering advertising space in the media, controlling infrastructure,
owning intellectual property, owning, controlling or intimidating distribution
channels and suppliers and so on.
Impose vertical "price squeezes" - By owning, controlling, colluding with, or
intimidating suppliers and distributors, marketing channels and wholesale and
retail outlets into not collaborating with the competition.
Practice vertical integration (buying suppliers and distributionb and
This has the following effects:
The firm gains a "tap (access) into technology" and marketing information in
an adjacent industry. It defends itself against a supplier's too-high or even
It defends itself against foreclosure, bankruptcy and restructuring or
reorganization. Owning suppliers means that the supplies do not cease even when
payment is not affected, for instance.
It "protects proprietary information from suppliers" - otherwise the firm
might have to give outsiders access to its technology, processes, formulas and
other intellectual property.
It raises entry and mobility barriers against competitors. This is why the
State should legislate and act against any purchase, or other types of control
of suppliers and marketing channels which service competitors and thus enhance
It serves to "prove that a threat of full integration is credible" and thus
Finally, it gets "detailed cost information" in an adjacent industry (but
doesn't integrate it into a "highly competitive industry")
"Capture distribution outlets" by vertical integration to "increase
'Consolidate' the Industry
Send "signals" to threaten, bluff, preempt, or collude with competitors
Use a "fighting brand" (a low-price brand used only for price-cutting)
Use "cross parry" (retaliate in another part of a competitor's market)
Harass competitors with antitrust suits and other litigious techniques
Use "brute force" ("massed resources" applied "with finesse") to attack
or use "focal points" of pressure to collude with competitors on price
"Load up customers" at cut-rate prices to "deny new entrants a base" and
force them to "withdraw" from market;
Practice "buyer selection," focusing on those that are the most "vulnerable"
(easiest to overcharge) and discriminating against and for certain types of
"Consolidate" the industry so as to "overcome industry fragmentation".
This arguments is highly successful with US federal courts in the last
decade. There is an intuitive feeling that few is better and that a consolidated
industry is bound to be more efficient, better able to compete and to survive
and, ultimately, better positioned to lower prices, to conduct costly research
and development and to increase quality. In the words of Porter: "(The) pay-off
to consolidating a fragmented industry can be high because... small and weak
competitors offer little threat of retaliation"
Time one's own capacity additions; never sell old capacity "to anyone who
will use it in the same industry" and buy out "and retire competitors'
About The Author
Sam Vaknin is the author of "Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited" and
"After the Rain - How the West Lost the East". He is a columnist in "Central
Europe Review", United Press International (UPI) and ebookweb.org and the editor
of mental health and Central East Europe categories in The Open Directory,
Suite101 and searcheurope.com. Until recently, he served as the Economic Advisor
to the Government of Macedonia.
His web site:
Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/