AI132

Whether governments should regulate businesses and other organizations has long been a much debated issue. On the one hand, businesses cry for "laissez faire", or a "leave-me-alone" policy; while on the other hand, governments reply with increasingly sophisticated legal systems and more efficient institutions to carry out such regulations. While it is true that government regulation does impose some burden on corporations, such regulations are indispensable in protecting the public good and sometimes the industry itself.

For one thing, government regulations protect customers from harmful products and inferior services. Although many businesses are highly concerned with their reputation and pay due attention to the quality of their products to build a good public image, not every enterprise is built to last. Therefore, government has to stand out and protect the customers from unsafe products, especially those who cannot afford big brand names.  Sometimes, even those reputable names are reluctant to improve their products and services because such actions might affect their profits. In that case, governments have to impose penalty on companies so that they will do good to their customers. A good case in point concerns McDonald, the famous fast food chain store. After an elder lady sued the company for intentionally serving coffee that was hot enough to cause injury, the company put caution signs on every product it serves. But were it not for the fear of future compensations of large amount of money, the company would not have done anything for other customers.

For another, businesses themselves will sometimes have to resort to the government for a fair environment of competition. Although free market usually works well without any government intervention, there are indeed situations in which it malfunctions. For example, if one predominant company in the industry uses its monopoly force to compete unfairly, other small companies and the customers might be too weak to fight the industry giant. One specific case in point involves Microsoft Corporation, a leading company in the field of information technology. In order to boost its sales of IE browser, it bundled the product with Windows, a system software that owns overwhelming market shares. Customers were angry, and other enterprises were disappointed, but they could do nothing about monopoly unless they turn to the government for help. Here the government acts as a guard for the maintenance of a fair and competitive market.

Some people might object to my view, claiming that businesses can assume responsibilities for their own good. It cannot be denied that many industry standards are of even higher level than corresponding government regulations. I have to admit that this is true to a large extent. But what about the interests of the whole industry conflict with the public good of a larger scope? As a matter of fact, the refrigeration industry was reluctant to apply CFC free technology even after the Montreal Protocol was signed. A black market was even formed to import CFC materials from China and India. The customers may prefer to buy refrigerators of low cost and the whole industry would be happy to continue the production of these products. Consequently, governments have to step in so that our common environment can be protected.

To conclude, although businesses might fare well most of the time with self-regulation, still government have to establish standards and regulations for companies to follow. An appropriate level of government intervention under strict legal framework does more good than harm to the whole society, including the business world.