LONDON -- The term "fair competition" is a word like "motherhood." We all regard it as desirable and a good thing. But it is an economic proposition that is not easily attainable, and if it is achieved can only be maintained by constant vigilance. Some of those who pay lip service to the concept show by their behavior that they dislike measures designed to ensure fair competition in their industries and strive by legal or sometimes illegal means to undermine it. Alternatively, they say yes in principle but then add a number of "good reasons" why it should not apply in their case. In Japanese, such arguments are termed "soron sansei, kakuron hantai."

The most commonly used argument by socialists and others is that certain industries are natural monopolies and that fair competition is either not desirable or wasteful and inefficient. The privatization of utilities that has been pursued vigorously by some governments, especially the Thatcher administration in Britain, has showed that what many previously considered to be natural monopolies, such as telecommunications, electricity and gas, can be privatized without too much difficulty and competition injected.

In Britain, privatization of these sectors has increased efficiency and generally brought down costs to consumers. The main problem has been to draw up a system that ensures that competition is fair and the interests of consumers are adequately protected.