During this month, we’ve been publishing papers from competition authorities describing ways to educate an audience that may not even understand what “competition policy” is. Part of the surprise has been the actual diversity of those audiences – not just the public, but fellow agencies, judges, and even other authorities. And as the Brazilians and Mexicans have discovered, it’s doubly hard when there’s been a revision of the laws. In part 2 of this series, we present interesting case studies from Brazil and Mexico, as well as reports from Singapore, South Africa, Japan, and the ICN. (Check out Part 1 for reports from the FTC, Chile, Sweden, and Taiwan.) And many thanks to Danny Sokol for his help designing these issues.
Competition Outreach & Advocacy, Part 2
Not only does CADE face the natural challenges that a transition from a post- to pre-merger system entails, but it also has had to develop an outreach strategy to communicate the transition efforts. Carlos Emmanuel Joppert Ragazzo & Cristiane Landerdahl de Albuquerque (CADE)
The ICN as poised to play a more visible role in global policy debates going forward. Maria Coppola (U.S. FTC)
It can be said that vigorous law enforcement against anticompetitive conducts might be the most effective outreach activity of all. Japan Fair Trade Commission
One of the challenges of competition advocacy enforcement is its lack of clear-cut boundaries, instruments, and tasks. Angel Lopez Hoher (Mexican Federal Competition Commission)
Businesses must have confidence that competition law is there to protect them from anticompetitive behavior from their competitors, and to assure them of a level playing field to grow their business. Competition Commission of Singapore
The work of the competition authorities is taking on the flavour of a social movement.’ Trudi Makhaya (Competition Commission South Africa)