The ideal amount of goods or services produced in a market is dictated by the needs of society, while ensuring there is a margin to account for small changes in demand. If the needs are too much and the production is too low, producers reduce the quality level and raise the profit margin as far as possible. They tend to sustain this state of affairs, wherein they earn more for less work for as long as possible. Monopolistic enterprises founded by laws are the best example of this type of market, while market generated monopolies are often self-destructive.
Even if production capacity is too much relative to demand, a surplus in supply does not occur since producers do not waste their resources, but instead curb their production to meet the actual level demanded. If production is at an optimum level where supply meets demand, market fears of lack of competition results in profiteering behaviour by suppliers where they drive up prices and reduce quality.
Such market behaviour is prevalent regardless of whether the market is in the private or public sector. To give an example, in the 1980s private hospitals were few and far between and the lack of competition this entailed resulted in huge variation in quality of the service supplied. By contrast, the increased number of private hospitals has resulted in greater competition with a subsequent and natural rise in both quality and supply. Thus, from lack of competition it is impossible to meet the quality and quantity demands of the market. Instead supplying firms capitalise on such market inefficiencies and maximise their profits.
The best example of this is the present judicial system in Turkey. Despite reforms, an increased labour force and the improvement of working conditions and rights for employees in the sector, the fact that judicial services are a legally monopolistic service and are offered only by the State means that there is both a drop in the amount of judicial services offered and a regression in the rule of law.
Due to either natural market driving forces or legal reasons, the services offered by monopolistic enterprises drop in quality, while their labor force expands . A prime solution to both problems is to reduce monopolistic tendencies in the market by encouraging competition in the Judiciary. To achieve this, we are required to make the entirety of judicial organisations transparent and accountable.
In a desire to encourage competition in the sector, our Government has sought alternative methods such as obligatory mediation, reconciliation and arbitration. Despite intentions to reduce the workload of the judiciary, in practice it has resulted in a second legal sector that serves as an alternative to and can compete with the formal judiciary. Consequently, it is inevitable that open competition between these dispute resolution services is generated.
Throughout all of this, it is of prime importance to remember that the healthy development of production requires the healthy structuring and organisation of producers. Only competition between such entities will pave the way for sustained production that is beneficial for all. The alternative scenario sees damaging producers seeking to maximise solely their own short-term profits and in doing so destroy both themselves and the wider market. On the road to greater judicial transparency it is key to ensure that this does not happen.
