The market is the place, physical or virtual, where the supply and the demand meet, allowing the emergence of exact prices. For this, it is governed by the principle of free competition. The market is thus the alpha and the omega of competition law, since the competition authority must determine the relevant market, in particular to penalize anti-competitive practices, and has the function of repairing the damage done to the market.
Regulation does not make the same place on the market except where the regulatory apparatus is temporary and its purpose is to build a competitive market. Its reference is more that of a sector, a wider space than that of the market. However, the finesse of regulatory techniques and the proximity of competition law and regulation law have led to the maturity of regulation of telecommunications to distinguish ex ante a series of markets.
In the same way in finance one distinguishes the regulated markets and those organized by mutual agreement which are not subjected to the same rules. However, regulation tends to encompass the different markets, different horizontally or vertically (upstream market and downstream market) in the same perspective and in correlated rules to ensure the general equilibrium of the sector since precisely, There is no such economic law of competition that would spontaneously give rise to such a balance.
There is much debate as to whether the market is a fact, a historical and geographical construction situated, or even a political idea or an philosophy or ideology claiming to be the first. The "regulation" is then colored in counterpoint: thus, the "regulation of the globalization" refers to the political idea of fight against the "all-market".
In principle, the very mechanism of the market is governed by freedom, the freedoms of the agents themselves - the freedom to undertake and contract - and the competitive freedom that marks the market itself, the convergence of these freedoms allowing the self-regulated functioning of The "market law", namely the massive encounter of offers and demands that generates the right price ("fair price").
But in the case of financial markets, which are regulated markets, "market abuses" are sanctioned at the very heart of regulation. Indeed, the regulation of the financial markets presupposes that the information is distributed there for the benefit of investors, or even other stakeholders, possibly information not exclusively financial. This integrity of the financial markets which, beyond the integrity of information, must achieve transparency, justifies that information is fully and equally shared. That is why those who hold or must hold information that is not shared by others (privileged information) must not use it in the market until they have made it public. Similarly, they should not send bad information to the market. Neither should they manipulate stock market prices.
These sanctions were essentially conceived by the American financial theory, concretized by the American courts, then taken back in Europe. To the extent that they sanction both reproachable behavior and constitute a public policy instrument of direction and protection of markets, the question of cumulation of criminal law and administrative repressive law can only be posed with difficulty in Europe.
The market is normally self-regulated. It suffers from one-time failures when economic agents engage in anti-competitive behavior, mainly the abuse of dominant positions in the ordinary markets, or the abuse of markets in the financial markets, sanctioned ex post by the authorities in individual decisions.
But some sectors suffer from structural failures, which prevent them, even without malicious intent of agents, from reaching this mechanism of adjustment of supply and demand. The existence of an economically natural monopoly, for example a transport network, constitutes a structural failure. Another agent will not duplicate once the first network has been built, which prevents competition. An a-competitive regulation, either by nationalization, by a state control or by a control by a regulatory authority, is needed to ensure everyone's access to an essential facility. Also constitutes a market failure asymmetry of information, theorized through the notion of agency that hinders the availability and circulation of exhaustive and reliable information on markets, especially financial markets. This market failure carries with it a systemic risk, against which regulation is definitely built and entrusted to financial regulators and central banks.
In these cases, the implementation of regulations is a reaction of the State not so much by political rejection of the Market, but because the competitive economy is unfit to function. This has nothing to do with the hypothesis that the State is distancing itself from the Market, not because it is structurally flawed in relation to its own model, but because politics wants to impose higher values, expressed By the public service, whose market does not always satisfy the missions.
The very term 'media' is ambiguous since in the literal sense it designates what makes it possible to convey information between two people, that is to say the container rather than the content. In fact, today the media designate the content, that is to say the information as well as the media on which it circulates.
If the media are regulated, it is above all for political purposes and in a different way depending on the medium. Indeed, if we take the audiovisual sector, it is above all a question of preserving public television stations from the temptation of political power to use its power as owner to use it as a propaganda tool and to ensure pluralism. politics during election campaigns. The regulator of these public freedoms is the CSA. The print media does not have a regulator per se; it is directly held at arm's length financially by the state through the Directorate of Media Development, attached to the Prime Minister. But today the major medium appears to be the Internet, a space for which global regulation remains to be found.
Finally, because it is not possible to distinguish between content and container, the dynamism of communication and the dynamism of content creation are inseparable. Therefore, the regulation of communication must eventually be associated with the regulation of content creation, that is to say, cultural regulation. In the United States, this is left to the market, where a film industry has notably been built, guided by the needs of applicants. France continues to defend the idea that culture and the audiovisual sector are not a neutral object of the market and should therefore be removed from the WTO, the regulation of culture, because it is a question of common good, to which everyone must have access, justifying the entire ex ante system of public aid for creation and the desire for cultural diversity.