Question Description
PASSAGE IIIThe need for Competition Law becomes more evident when foreign direct investment (FDI) is liberalised. The impact of FDI is not always pro-competitive. Very often FDI takes the form of a foreign corporation acquiring a domestic enterprise or establishing a joint venture with one. By making such an acquisition the foreign investor may substantially lessen competition and gain a dominant position in the relevant market, thus charging higher prices. Another scenario is where the affiliates of two separate multinational companies (MNCs) have been established in competition with one another in a particular developing economy, following the liberisation of FDI. Subsequently, the parent companies overseas merge. With the affiliates no longer remaining independent, competition in the host country may be artificially inflated. Most of these adverse consequences of mergers and acquisitions by MNCs can be avoided if an effective competition law is in place. Also, an economy that has implemented an effective competition law is in a better position to attract FDI than one that has not. This is not just because most MNCs are expected to be accustomed to the operation of such a law in their home countries and know how to deal with such concerns but also that MNCs expect competition authorities to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.Q. What is the inference from this passage?a)Foreign investors and multinational companies always dominate domestic market.b)It is not in the best interest of domestic economy to allow mergers company.c)With competition law, it is easy to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.d)For countries with open economy Foreign Direct investment is essential for growth.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for UPSC 2024 is part of UPSC preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the UPSC exam syllabus. Information about PASSAGE IIIThe need for Competition Law becomes more evident when foreign direct investment (FDI) is liberalised. The impact of FDI is not always pro-competitive. Very often FDI takes the form of a foreign corporation acquiring a domestic enterprise or establishing a joint venture with one. By making such an acquisition the foreign investor may substantially lessen competition and gain a dominant position in the relevant market, thus charging higher prices. Another scenario is where the affiliates of two separate multinational companies (MNCs) have been established in competition with one another in a particular developing economy, following the liberisation of FDI. Subsequently, the parent companies overseas merge. With the affiliates no longer remaining independent, competition in the host country may be artificially inflated. Most of these adverse consequences of mergers and acquisitions by MNCs can be avoided if an effective competition law is in place. Also, an economy that has implemented an effective competition law is in a better position to attract FDI than one that has not. This is not just because most MNCs are expected to be accustomed to the operation of such a law in their home countries and know how to deal with such concerns but also that MNCs expect competition authorities to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.Q. What is the inference from this passage?a)Foreign investors and multinational companies always dominate domestic market.b)It is not in the best interest of domestic economy to allow mergers company.c)With competition law, it is easy to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.d)For countries with open economy Foreign Direct investment is essential for growth.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for UPSC 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for PASSAGE IIIThe need for Competition Law becomes more evident when foreign direct investment (FDI) is liberalised. The impact of FDI is not always pro-competitive. Very often FDI takes the form of a foreign corporation acquiring a domestic enterprise or establishing a joint venture with one. By making such an acquisition the foreign investor may substantially lessen competition and gain a dominant position in the relevant market, thus charging higher prices. Another scenario is where the affiliates of two separate multinational companies (MNCs) have been established in competition with one another in a particular developing economy, following the liberisation of FDI. Subsequently, the parent companies overseas merge. With the affiliates no longer remaining independent, competition in the host country may be artificially inflated. Most of these adverse consequences of mergers and acquisitions by MNCs can be avoided if an effective competition law is in place. Also, an economy that has implemented an effective competition law is in a better position to attract FDI than one that has not. This is not just because most MNCs are expected to be accustomed to the operation of such a law in their home countries and know how to deal with such concerns but also that MNCs expect competition authorities to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.Q. What is the inference from this passage?a)Foreign investors and multinational companies always dominate domestic market.b)It is not in the best interest of domestic economy to allow mergers company.c)With competition law, it is easy to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.d)For countries with open economy Foreign Direct investment is essential for growth.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for PASSAGE IIIThe need for Competition Law becomes more evident when foreign direct investment (FDI) is liberalised. The impact of FDI is not always pro-competitive. Very often FDI takes the form of a foreign corporation acquiring a domestic enterprise or establishing a joint venture with one. By making such an acquisition the foreign investor may substantially lessen competition and gain a dominant position in the relevant market, thus charging higher prices. Another scenario is where the affiliates of two separate multinational companies (MNCs) have been established in competition with one another in a particular developing economy, following the liberisation of FDI. Subsequently, the parent companies overseas merge. With the affiliates no longer remaining independent, competition in the host country may be artificially inflated. Most of these adverse consequences of mergers and acquisitions by MNCs can be avoided if an effective competition law is in place. Also, an economy that has implemented an effective competition law is in a better position to attract FDI than one that has not. This is not just because most MNCs are expected to be accustomed to the operation of such a law in their home countries and know how to deal with such concerns but also that MNCs expect competition authorities to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.Q. What is the inference from this passage?a)Foreign investors and multinational companies always dominate domestic market.b)It is not in the best interest of domestic economy to allow mergers company.c)With competition law, it is easy to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.d)For countries with open economy Foreign Direct investment is essential for growth.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for UPSC. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for UPSC Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of PASSAGE IIIThe need for Competition Law becomes more evident when foreign direct investment (FDI) is liberalised. The impact of FDI is not always pro-competitive. Very often FDI takes the form of a foreign corporation acquiring a domestic enterprise or establishing a joint venture with one. By making such an acquisition the foreign investor may substantially lessen competition and gain a dominant position in the relevant market, thus charging higher prices. Another scenario is where the affiliates of two separate multinational companies (MNCs) have been established in competition with one another in a particular developing economy, following the liberisation of FDI. Subsequently, the parent companies overseas merge. With the affiliates no longer remaining independent, competition in the host country may be artificially inflated. Most of these adverse consequences of mergers and acquisitions by MNCs can be avoided if an effective competition law is in place. Also, an economy that has implemented an effective competition law is in a better position to attract FDI than one that has not. This is not just because most MNCs are expected to be accustomed to the operation of such a law in their home countries and know how to deal with such concerns but also that MNCs expect competition authorities to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.Q. What is the inference from this passage?a)Foreign investors and multinational companies always dominate domestic market.b)It is not in the best interest of domestic economy to allow mergers company.c)With competition law, it is easy to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.d)For countries with open economy Foreign Direct investment is essential for growth.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of PASSAGE IIIThe need for Competition Law becomes more evident when foreign direct investment (FDI) is liberalised. The impact of FDI is not always pro-competitive. Very often FDI takes the form of a foreign corporation acquiring a domestic enterprise or establishing a joint venture with one. By making such an acquisition the foreign investor may substantially lessen competition and gain a dominant position in the relevant market, thus charging higher prices. Another scenario is where the affiliates of two separate multinational companies (MNCs) have been established in competition with one another in a particular developing economy, following the liberisation of FDI. Subsequently, the parent companies overseas merge. With the affiliates no longer remaining independent, competition in the host country may be artificially inflated. Most of these adverse consequences of mergers and acquisitions by MNCs can be avoided if an effective competition law is in place. Also, an economy that has implemented an effective competition law is in a better position to attract FDI than one that has not. This is not just because most MNCs are expected to be accustomed to the operation of such a law in their home countries and know how to deal with such concerns but also that MNCs expect competition authorities to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.Q. What is the inference from this passage?a)Foreign investors and multinational companies always dominate domestic market.b)It is not in the best interest of domestic economy to allow mergers company.c)With competition law, it is easy to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.d)For countries with open economy Foreign Direct investment is essential for growth.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for PASSAGE IIIThe need for Competition Law becomes more evident when foreign direct investment (FDI) is liberalised. The impact of FDI is not always pro-competitive. Very often FDI takes the form of a foreign corporation acquiring a domestic enterprise or establishing a joint venture with one. By making such an acquisition the foreign investor may substantially lessen competition and gain a dominant position in the relevant market, thus charging higher prices. Another scenario is where the affiliates of two separate multinational companies (MNCs) have been established in competition with one another in a particular developing economy, following the liberisation of FDI. Subsequently, the parent companies overseas merge. With the affiliates no longer remaining independent, competition in the host country may be artificially inflated. Most of these adverse consequences of mergers and acquisitions by MNCs can be avoided if an effective competition law is in place. Also, an economy that has implemented an effective competition law is in a better position to attract FDI than one that has not. This is not just because most MNCs are expected to be accustomed to the operation of such a law in their home countries and know how to deal with such concerns but also that MNCs expect competition authorities to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.Q. What is the inference from this passage?a)Foreign investors and multinational companies always dominate domestic market.b)It is not in the best interest of domestic economy to allow mergers company.c)With competition law, it is easy to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.d)For countries with open economy Foreign Direct investment is essential for growth.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of PASSAGE IIIThe need for Competition Law becomes more evident when foreign direct investment (FDI) is liberalised. The impact of FDI is not always pro-competitive. Very often FDI takes the form of a foreign corporation acquiring a domestic enterprise or establishing a joint venture with one. By making such an acquisition the foreign investor may substantially lessen competition and gain a dominant position in the relevant market, thus charging higher prices. Another scenario is where the affiliates of two separate multinational companies (MNCs) have been established in competition with one another in a particular developing economy, following the liberisation of FDI. Subsequently, the parent companies overseas merge. With the affiliates no longer remaining independent, competition in the host country may be artificially inflated. Most of these adverse consequences of mergers and acquisitions by MNCs can be avoided if an effective competition law is in place. Also, an economy that has implemented an effective competition law is in a better position to attract FDI than one that has not. This is not just because most MNCs are expected to be accustomed to the operation of such a law in their home countries and know how to deal with such concerns but also that MNCs expect competition authorities to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.Q. What is the inference from this passage?a)Foreign investors and multinational companies always dominate domestic market.b)It is not in the best interest of domestic economy to allow mergers company.c)With competition law, it is easy to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.d)For countries with open economy Foreign Direct investment is essential for growth.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice PASSAGE IIIThe need for Competition Law becomes more evident when foreign direct investment (FDI) is liberalised. The impact of FDI is not always pro-competitive. Very often FDI takes the form of a foreign corporation acquiring a domestic enterprise or establishing a joint venture with one. By making such an acquisition the foreign investor may substantially lessen competition and gain a dominant position in the relevant market, thus charging higher prices. Another scenario is where the affiliates of two separate multinational companies (MNCs) have been established in competition with one another in a particular developing economy, following the liberisation of FDI. Subsequently, the parent companies overseas merge. With the affiliates no longer remaining independent, competition in the host country may be artificially inflated. Most of these adverse consequences of mergers and acquisitions by MNCs can be avoided if an effective competition law is in place. Also, an economy that has implemented an effective competition law is in a better position to attract FDI than one that has not. This is not just because most MNCs are expected to be accustomed to the operation of such a law in their home countries and know how to deal with such concerns but also that MNCs expect competition authorities to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.Q. What is the inference from this passage?a)Foreign investors and multinational companies always dominate domestic market.b)It is not in the best interest of domestic economy to allow mergers company.c)With competition law, it is easy to ensure a level playing field between domestic and foreign firms.d)For countries with open economy Foreign Direct investment is essential for growth.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice UPSC tests.