SRO System
In the self-regulatory system itself provides a number of restrictions on its effectiveness compared to other institutional alternatives. The obvious problem, which experts point out, are skeptical about the SRO, it is ability to restrict competition in the construction market, where there are SROs in construction. Such a danger does exist. But we should divide the two sides of the issue. One generally associated with unions business representatives. The very fact of membership in the SRO and the periodic meetings of senior managers, of course, involves information exchange and create opportunities for collusion.
Clearly, this is true for the SRO in the building, and other business associations, and just for the clubs, where decision-makers, there are as individuals. Whether this danger is real hard to say. In our view, the informal illegal collusion (if it has demand) may take place without the aid of any organization. Another aspect of the problem relates to the actual construction of the SROs, because within these organizations established certain requirements for doing business, they delegated companies – members of the organization and carried out their coordinated policy. As one private good may be mentioned of-court settlement of disputes. Strictly speaking, execution of this function and allows us to consider SRO in stroitelstvekak control mechanism deals. But the paradox is that this function of SRO is not always a boon for private acts of firms (although the public is always).
It depends primarily on the effectiveness and value of other ways of resolving disputes, including trials. In practice, companies are interested in the extra-judicial dispute resolution if and only if such a system fundamentally cheaper than going to court procedure. In Russia, the costs are relatively low, and the judicial process is extremely snug, thus giving to companies more profitable to provoke conflict consumers to trial. A large part simply will not communicate with the court, and those who will submit a claim and even win the case, is unlikely to receive compensation, strongly exceeding those that can be set to address extrajudicial body. Extrajudicial system under such conditions is advantageous for companies if they do not own reclamation service and this SRO function is passed in construction. (Although in the development of amicable settlement of the initial contact with a conflicting company is required, so that there is a contradiction.) But even if court settlement is not a special boon to companies, it remains a public good way to maintain a collective trademark and, therefore, strengthen the competitive advantages of firms – Member SRO. Thus, in this case, a tripartite management transactions can be characterized not only by specific features of transactions, but also the factors that lie outside of specific transactions.
