Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/1999-12-16-Speech-4-108"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.19991216.3.4-108"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, the Dutch poet Lucebert wrote “Everything of value is defenceless.” These words are of great value in the debate on fixed book prices.
In fixed book pricing, there is certainly no ‘sacred cow’ for book lovers. With words to the same effect, former Commissioner Van Miert once lashed out against those advocating the maintenance of fixed book pricing. He very conveniently overlooked the fact that those against fixed book pricing very probably selected the market mechanism as if it were their “golden calf”.
The instrument of fixed book pricing and the corresponding restriction in exploiting the opportunities afforded by parallel importing reduce competition. Cross-subsidisation will occur between good and bad expenditure. The abolition of fixed book pricing results in increased competition and lower prices. This would be in the interests of the consumer.
This line of reasoning seems to be sound, but it falls short on two important counts. In the first place, the government is responsible for running society as a whole. In carrying out this responsibility, it is completely unacceptable to society as a whole if it honours certain specific interests unilaterally and neglects others. In this discussion, the government cannot just have the consumer’s partial interests at heart.
Secondly, the reasoning is based on the implied assumption that price is the only thing that matters to the consumer. This is a rather one-sided view. I have never met a consumer on the street with such blinkered views. He only exists in theory. Indeed, the real consumer also takes into account quality, diversity, accessibility and adequate distribution of the total supply of books. That fixed book pricing only benefits publishers and bookshops is thus a fable and anyone who has read a story in a children’s book will know that fables are not entirely true.
People in favour of the abolition of fixed book pricing should also be aware of the consequences. It is highly likely that diversity in the supply of bookshops will suffer. Mass culture will be promoted. This is, in the long run, fatal for the cultural education of citizens. In my country, the Netherlands, there is also the consideration that fixed book pricing protects our relatively small linguistic region.
You could, in defence, bring up the argument that it is not up to the government to tutor or stimulate its citizens into cultural education and it therefore has no responsibility in terms of the richness in the variety of books supplied. The government should abstain from exercising any influence and the market mechanism will balance out supply and demand. This sounds neutral but it is not. Implicitly, this point of view sees the effect of market forces as being the only right outcome. In our society, the introduction of market forces seems to be the highest goal in virtually all areas of policy. This viewpoint is a direct result of reversing ends and means. The outcome of a liberal, strictly market-conforming policy is, by definition, not free from value judgement. With such a policy, the government is making just as much of a value statement of what it believes is right or wrong. It is especially important in the cultural sector that factors other than financial ones are part of the equation because things of great value also happen to be very vulnerable.
If the free market forces take over, we will soon have to switch Lucebert’s words around to “Everything is once more without value”. We need to avoid this situation at all costs."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples