Driven by a predisposition towards seeing competition as the solution to, and not cause of, economic and social challenges, competition law authorities have historically viewed interactions between competitors with some scepticism, applying a default assumption that rivalry is better than collaboration and then choosing to permit – but scarcely encourage or require – co-operation where this default assumption does not apply. Nevertheless, this article explores the levers that authorities (and policy-makers) do have at their disposal to permit, incentivize or mandate competitor initiatives that would have benefits for society. It discusses the circumstances in which each of these options has been deployed in the past, and the benefits and challenges that have arisen. It concludes that it is important for regulators not to view these options as purely interchangeable, and to instead think carefully about which would be most appropriate in a given situation in light of all relevant circumstances.
*The PDF version of this article and the full March 2026 edition of the CPI Antitrust Chronicle were originally published on the CPI website.
