TASHI DEKI | Thimphu
Thimphu’s meat market has become more competitive following intervention by the Competition and Consumer Affairs Authority (CCAA) against a former practice of uniform pricing among meat vendors.
The CCAA’s report, “Is Thimphu’s Meat Market Competitive?”, examined retail prices of 15 meat products across 65 meat shops in Thimphu Town. The study was conducted more than nine months after the authority ordered the Bhutan Meat Vendors Association (BMVA) to stop setting the same selling price for its member shops. The CCAA also trained meat vendors on how to determine their own prices.
The authority found that fresh, individually priced meat products generally show meaningful differences in prices between shops, suggesting that vendors are now following their own pricing strategies rather than a common price list.
The study found three broad pricing patterns. Packaged frozen chicken and standard local chicken had the smallest price differences. For example, 1,200g frozen chicken had an average price of Nu 360, with prices ranging from Nu 330 to Nu 390. Its price spread was 2.2 percent, and 93 percent of the 30 shops surveyed charged the most common price.
For 1kg frozen chicken, the average price was Nu 301, ranging from Nu 280 to Nu 330, with a price spread of 2.3 percent. Among the 59 shops surveyed, 86 percent charged the most common price. Meanwhile, 1,500g frozen chicken averaged Nu 453, with prices between Nu 450 and Nu 500. Its price spread was 2.5 percent, and 89 percent of 37 shops charged the most common price.
Local chicken also showed relatively tight pricing. It averaged Nu 350, with prices ranging from Nu 300 to Nu 390. Its price spread was 3.9 percent, while 85 percent of 60 shops charged the most common price.
However, the CCAA said uniform prices for these products should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of coordination. Frozen chicken is pre-packed, factory-weighed and generally sold close to a supplier or importer-set price. Local chicken is also a standardised everyday product, giving retailers less reason to maintain large price differences.
Fresh-cut products showed considerably greater variation. Beef, pork, Sekam and Shakam recorded wider differences between the cheapest and most expensive shops, a pattern the report says is consistent with competition.
Local beef with bone averaged Nu 637 per kilogram, with prices ranging from Nu 500 to Nu 700. Local boneless beef averaged Nu 758, ranging from Nu 650 to Nu 850. Imported boneless beef averaged Nu 669, with prices between Nu 540 and Nu 750. Imported bone-in beef had an average price of Nu 672, ranging from Nu 600 to Nu 800.
Sekam averaged Nu 774 per kilogram, with prices ranging from Nu 700 to Nu 850, while Shakam averaged Nu 2,400, with prices ranging from Nu 1,800 to Nu 2,600.
Local pork showed the widest difference. The cheapest shop charged Nu 300 per kilogram while the most expensive charged Nu 650, creating a gap of 80 percent around the market average. Despite this wide range, 75 percent of the 59 shops surveyed charged exactly Nu 450 per kilogram. The CCAA said this could result from normal price convergence around common wholesale or live-animal costs, although the data could not rule out informal price signalling.
Fish prices fell between the two patterns. Rahu averaged Nu 306 per kilogram and Panga Nu 305, with both recording a 3.9 percent price spread. Katla averaged Nu 350, ranging from Nu 320 to Nu 400, with a 5.5 percent price spread.
The CCAA suggested that fish prices may be influenced by reference prices from a relatively small number of wholesalers or importers, while retailers still retain some room to set different prices.
The authority also examined whether individual shops consistently priced their products higher or lower than competitors. Of the 65 shops, 21 were classified as about average, 19 were cheaper than average and 15 were pricier than average. A further two shops were much cheaper and eight were much pricier than average. This meant 44 shops leaned clearly towards either the cheaper or pricier side.
The CCAA said this consistency in individual shops’ overall pricing levels is another indication that vendors are using their own pricing strategies rather than quietly following a common association price list.
Overall, the authority concluded that the evidence points to a genuinely more competitive market for fresh, individually priced meat products than existed under the former price agreement. Meaningful price differences between shops and consistent differences in their overall pricing behaviour suggest that vendors are competing rather than coordinating.
At the same time, the report cautioned that the survey cannot completely rule out informal price matching or other softer forms of coordination. Prices were collected at only one point in time, while the number of shops surveyed varied considerably by product. The study also did not record differences in quality, freshness, cuts or portion weight, which could partly explain price differences.
The CCAA has recommended conducting similar surveys regularly, such as every quarter, to track whether price competition is sustained and identify any return towards uniform pricing. It also recommended continuing to publish comparative retail prices through Market Price Information and Monthly Price Watch to help consumers make informed purchasing decisions and support competition.
The findings indicate that the CCAA’s intervention and training for meat vendors are having the intended effect, with most shops now appearing to determine their prices independently. However, regular monitoring will remain important to ensure that competition in Thimphu’s meat market is maintained.
