74 / 100
Case studies were also contributed by 14 Responding
Memberswhichdocumented their approach toadvocating
for GLEs to take into consideration competition issues
when proposing regulations for disruptive innovations.
These covered a range of sectors, such as transport,
media, real estate brokerage services, energy, financial,
and payment services.
The special project report also discussed the challenges
faced by Responding Members when engaging in
disruptive innovation-related government advocacy,
and offered learning points for ICN members looking
to engage in similar efforts.
First, GLEs may not regularly consider or assess
the impact of their proposed policies on market
competition.
Responding Members have mitigated
this by proactively explaining the importance of
competition to GLEs, encouraging them to consider
competition issue throughout the policymaking
process. Institutional safeguards were also
suggested as a way to ensure GLEs consider
competition assessment.
Second, RespondingMembers noted a lack of data and
extensive study ondisruptive innovations.
Recognising
the importance of empirical assessment and evidence
in supporting advocacy efforts, Responding Members
planned and collected information in advance – at times
together with GLEs – and then utilised this information
as part of enforcement case work and market studies.
Third, GLEs and competition agencies are often
under political pressure, particularly as disruptive
innovation is an area that is susceptible to defensive
behaviour and aggressive lobbying by incumbents.
Responding Members have attempted to overcome this
by focusing advocacy efforts on key decision makers,
as well as reminding them to be “competition-minded”
when designing policies.
Ms Ng Ee Kia, Senior Director of the Policy andMarkets Division in CCS, was themoderator of the plenary session at the presentation of the special project report.