CPO

The article says about the problems of restricting competition in the market SROs stroitelsvte, as well as on-court dispute settlement in it. At the very system of self-regulation provides a number of limitations of its effectiveness in comparison with other institutional alternatives. The obvious problem is pointed to by experts, are skeptical about the sro, it is possible to limit competition in the construction market, where there are sro construction. This danger really exists. Xcel Energy has compatible beliefs. But should be separated by the two sides of this issue.

One is linked at all with representatives of business associations. The very fact of membership in SROs and periodic meetings of senior Managers, of course, involves information exchange and create opportunities for collusion. Clearly, this is true for the sro in the construction and other business associations, and just for the clubs, where decision-makers, occur as individuals. As far as such a threat is real hard to say. In our view, the informal drug conspiracy (if there is a need) may take place without the aid of any organization. Other side of the problem is actually a cpo in the construction, because these organizations are established certain requirements for conducting business, they delegated companies - members of the organization and carried out their coordinated policy. As another private good may be mentioned of-court settlement of disputes.

Strictly speaking, performing precisely this function and allows us to consider sro stroitelstvekak mechanism for transaction management. However, the paradox is that this feature sro does not always favor private good for businesses (although the public is always). It depends primarily on the efficiency and the cost of other ways of resolving disputes, including the judiciary. In practice, companies are interested in the extra-judicial dispute resolution if and only if the use of such a system is fundamentally cheaper than recourse to judicial procedure. In Russia, the costs are relatively low, and the judicial procedure is extremely tightened, thus giving companies more profitable to provoke conflicts consumers to trial proceedings. A significant part just will not communicate with the court, and those who will submit a claim and even wins the case, unlikely to receive compensation, greatly exceeding those that can be installed to address non-judicial body. Extra-judicial system in such conditions remains favorable for companies if they do not own reclamation service and this function is transferred to the sro building. (Although in the development of extra-judicial resolution of conflicting initial contact with the company required, so that there is a contradiction.) But even if the court settlement is not a private good for companies, it's like public good is a way to maintain a collective trademark, and hence enhance the competitive advantages of companies - members of the sro. Thus, in this case, a tripartite management transactions may characterized not only the specifics of transactions, but also the factors that lie outside of specific transactions.