forums on competition and · the international competition network (icn) was formed a decade ago as...

EXTERNAL REVIEW OF IDRC PRE-ICN

FORUMS ON COMPETITION AND

DEVELOPMENT 2006-2011

Philip Marsden and Ricardo Wilson-GrauJanuary 2012

For Adrian Di Giovanni, Law & Development Social and Economic Policy (SEP)IDRC File No. 106775-001

Philip Marsden and Ricardo Wilson-Grau, January 2012 1

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................2

The ICN and the IDRC Pre-ICN Forums................................................................................................4

Introduction to the evaluation............................................................................................................5

Methodology — scope and limitations...............................................................................................6

Results of the IDRC Pre-ICN Forums .................................................................................................10

Benefits to attendees of the Forums ............................................................................................10

Beneficial results for the competition policy field........................................................................13

But did all these achievements Influence the ICN? ......................................................................20

Outcomes that represent IDRC Forums’ impact...........................................................................26

Potential for continued IDRC support for the Pre-ICN forums.........................................................28

Achievement of the IDRC Forums’ objectives...................................................................................30

Informants’ suggestions for improvement ...................................................................................35

Conclusions, reflections and recommended points for discussion ..................................................36

Our recommended points for discussion......................................................................................37

Annexes.............................................................................................................................................38

Annex 1 Terms of Reference, External Review – IDRC Pre-ICN Forums on Competition andDevelopment, June 2011

Annex 2 Evaluation Workplan, IDRC Pre-ICN Forums on Competition and Development,September 2011

Annex 3 Competition policy experts consultedAnnex 4 IDRC Pre-ICN Forum SurveyAnnex 5 Survey responses from 45 informantsAnnex 6 Survey responses from 27 developing country (Africa, Asia, Latin America and the

Caribbean) informantsAnnex 7 Survey respondents from 18 developed country (Europe, North America and

Oceania) informantsAnnex 8 BibliographyAnnex 9 IDRC-supported publications on competition policyAnnex 10 List of AcronymsAnnex 11 Biographies of the evaluators


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Over 2006-2011 the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) sponsored and organisedannual conference days (‘IDRC Forums’) immediately preceding a larger annual conference of theInternational Competition Network (ICN). The purpose of this evaluation is to understand theprogress over that period that the IDRC Forums made in integrating developing country concernsinto global discussions such as that occur at ICN conferences, and to provide insights on how toenhance the achievement of the Forums’ objectives in future years.

Methodology

This evaluation has an outcomes-based focus. Nonetheless, we did not have pre-defined outcomeswith which to assess progress nor were the Forums evaluated during the six years. The Forum’sobjectives were reconstructed by IDRC from different documents in their files at the time of thisevaluation and thus it is inappropriate to try to find direct links between each objective and aparticular Forum, or for all Forums to satisfy every objective. Furthermore, we did not have access tolists of the participants of each Forum; the ICN organisers kindly gave us access to their current list of400+ participants of the ICN Conferences, many of whom also attended the Forums in 2010 and2011. In the end, through an on-line survey, email and interviews, we reached 45 attendees of theIDRC Forums, including over two dozen renowned experts in the competition policy field.

We recognise that because many of these informants are competition law and policy experts, theymight be most likely to be positive about the IDRC Forums. Any effects of such a potential biashowever is diminished to the extent that their vested interest lies foremost in competition policyrather than in the IDRC Forums themselves. Also, in addition to the informants’ opinion about theresults of the Forums, we asked for evidence — concrete instances of an individual or organisation,including themselves, changing their behaviour, relationships, actions or activities as a result of anIDRC Forum.

In sum. despite there being difficulties in surveying all beneficiaries of the IDRC Forums, we believewe have valid and sufficient data with which to answer the two evaluation questions within themethodological limitations. Certainly, a majority of the key respondents emphasised that theForums benefitted them significantly, with particular benefits for developing county informants.

Benefits to attendees

The Forums were reported to be very well targeted to the needs of the informants, from bothdeveloping and developed countries. In particular, key benefits were reported relating to:

developing capacity in competition policy, and learning about the value of market studies,case selection and focussing on final consumers;

facilitating the dissemination of new evidence about implementing sound competitionregimes in developing countries, including for example the balance between lawenforcement and policy advocacy;

enabling informants to influence competition policy in a developing country, includingparticular use of the media and alliances in the political arena; and

enhancing informants networking, resulting in collaborative exchange and furthercooperation.


Benefits to the competition policy field

The Forums’ informal nature was reported as a highlight, allowing developing country officials theconfidence to exchange lessons from their successes and failures, thereby enabling them toimplement a more effective competition policy in their own jurisdiction and thus making theirmarkets work better for consumers.

A key achievement for which there was uniform recognition and the highest reportingamong developing countries was the IDRC Forums’ contribution to research, which wasreported as ‘trade-mark’, ‘vital’ and ‘pioneering’.

Another key benefit of the Forums was sustaining and raising the profile of the 'developingcountry caucus' among the ICN membership, including enabling participants to engage incritical and productive discussions.

There was lower reporting by attendees of the IDRC Forums of directly influencing the ICNConference itself, its programme or work streams. However IDRC Forums have focussed on issuesthat developing countries want discussed in particular, while the ICN Conference programme hasfocused on issues of pragmatic importance to all agencies (e.g. analytical and investigativetechniques and other practical enforcement, policy and advocacy matters faced by agencies theworld over), and does not usually have break-out sessions or topics focussing on particular country-types or region. Nonetheless, the IDRC Forums clearly provided an opportunity for developingcountry concerns to be discussed more fully and in a more welcoming environment than prevailed atthe larger ICN event, but in doing so might have reduced the need for such issues to be discussedmore at the ICN Conference itself. This is an area ripe for further research; however, no informantviewed this as a negative finding, recognising the different aims and roles of the respective events.Indeed, a developing country competition expert noted that the “IDRC Forums constitute animportant forum for capacity building, for focused discussion of developing country issues and forraising issues that subsequently find their way into the mainstream work of the ICN.”

The report also includes findings related to the potential for continued IDRC support for the Forums,or for grants for research, travel and experts; better dissemination of IDRC-funded research; andincreased support for and ownership by attendees, including the prospect of financial andorganisational support and the contribution of expertise. Views are also expressed comparing theIDRC Forums favourably to other international, regional or national fora.

Overall, there appears to be a general achievement of many of the objectives proposed during thedevelopment of these annual IDRC Forums. Without being a structured programme in itself, theForums cumulatively appear to have resulted in outcomes related to:

promoting lively policy dialogue within the relevant policy community including some of itskey, high-level actors;

demonstrating the value of bringing in research based evidence into policy discussions;

supporting the preparation and worldwide dissemination of some new research papers;

providing a platform for dissemination of current and completed IDRC-supported research;

contributing in an ICN annual conference to the refinement and greater effectiveness ofcompetition policy interventions consistent with developmental goals; and

gradually developing steps towards ownership of the IDRC Forums by participants.

In our view, more benefits could have been identified with a more comprehensive set ofrespondents with which to engage, and a more ‘intentional’ focus or plan by IDRC from the start ofthe Forums for realising outcomes. Nevertheless, we note that when considering the value-addedof the IDRC Forums, one should not forget that these events were annual one-off events and in the


words of one informant "[w]ithout them, I think there would be a total discounting of developingcountry concerns."

THE ICN AND THE IDRC PRE-ICN FORUMS

The International Competition Network (ICN) was formed a decade ago as the self-financedmembership body for competition authorities worldwide, with the Canadian Competition Bureau(CBC) providing many of its Secretariat functions. It is the only global structure dealing withcompetition policy design and implementation. The ICN work program consists of standing workinggroups and a large Annual Conference but, in the views of some, ‘these activities tend to be drivenby the concerns of the largest, richer country members’.1 Competition agencies have now been setup in about half of all developing2 countries but they are almost without exception small,beleaguered and under-resourced. At the same time, like many other global organizations, the ICNhas had to absorb an influx of new, developing country member agencies. The ICN Conference is anannual three day event, hosted by a local competition authority; it has plenary and breakoutsessions that discuss the results of ICN workstreams throughout the year. Occasionally statementsand reports are issued recommending ‘best practices’ relating to competition law enforcement.

Since 2006, the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) has provided assistance(financial, technical and logistical) to one-day Forums held immediately before the ICN AnnualConference. This support has included facilitating travel costs of some participants to the Forumsand to the main ICN conferences. The general objective of these pre-ICN Forums has been topromote awareness and discussion of the challenges in the application of competition policy indeveloping countries, and thereby complement and enrich the Annual Conference agendas. TheForums provide an opportunity for developing country practitioners to meet one another, whilehelping promote greater participation of developing country competition authorities in the ICNAnnual Conference. More generally, the Forums have aimed to bring together academic researchand policy perspectives on competition policy design and implementation in developing countrycontexts and to raise interest in such issues more widely within the global competition community.In that connection, the Forums have also provided a platform to showcase related researchsupported by IDRC by developing-country competition bureaus on the application of competitionpolicy in their countries. The IDRC pre-ICN Forums cost on average 95,000 CAD and are one-offevents as opposed to a programme or series with a clearly set out focus or strategy. There are nodirectly related workstreams that emanate from or run between the Forums, although IDRC ongoingresearch is discussed at the Forums most years. The Forums are run annually, involve paneldiscussions and presentations, and a summary report afterwards. No recommendations are issuedor formal evaluations made.

Topics of past Forums have sought to address issues of direct relevance to the current state of thefield, such as consumer welfare (Istanbul, 2010; Moscow, 2007), the effects of the economic crisis(Zurich, 2009) and, most recently, network- and alliance-building for creating a culture of compliance(The Hague, 2011). The Forums have built an increasingly large and high-level audience (of morethan 100 participants in recent years) of policymakers and experts from all developing anddeveloped regions. Participants and presenters have included academics, competition law policy-

1IDRC in the Terms of Reference, Annex 1.

2There are of course different types of developing countries and indeed developed countries, with different attributes,

concerns, legal systems and economies. For the purposes of the review, we maintain the distinction between“developing” and “developed” countries broadly, recognizing where relevant distinctions within the groups. As a referencepoint, a useful definition of these terms is provided by the OECD at this link:http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=6326. .


makers and civil society representatives, over and above competition bureau practitioners, who arethe main constituency of the ICN Annual Conferences. The 2011 ICN conference brought togetherabout 500 participants from around 90 countries.

INTRODUCTION TO THE EVALUATION

The purpose of this evaluation is to understand the progress in 2006-2011 that the IDRC Pre-International Competition Network Forums made in integrating developing country concerns intoglobal discussions that occur at ICN conferences (e.g. regarding challenges in the design andimplementation of competition law and policy). The goals of these IDRC Forums have been tosupport practitioners and competition authorities from Asia, Africa and Latin America, for instance,by promoting debate on challenges in the application of competition policy in developing countries,and thereby complementing and enriching the ICN Annual Conference agendas.

For ease of comprehension, the IDRC pre-ICN Forums, and the ICN Annual Conference will bereferred to as, respectively, the IDRC Forums and the ICN Conference. This in many ways reflectscurrent practice both at IDRC and ICN, and amongst delegates; although it should be noted thatmany delegates referred to the IDRC Forums simply as the 'pre-ICN Forums' and viewed themas closely linked with and indeed part of the same 'event' as the ICN Conference, although obviouslydedicated to developing country issues and organised by IDRC.

There are two primary intended users of the IDRC Forum Evaluation. One is the IDRC Social andEconomic Policy (SEP) staff who are responsible for decisions about future IDRC-supported work oncompetition law and policy issues in developing countries and more specifically, for determining therelevance of, or alternative possibilities to, continued support for these pre-Conference Forums.IDRC staff seeking a deeper understanding about networks are also primary intended users. Theiruses are limited, however, because this evaluation is of IDRC’s contribution to the InternationalCompetition Network (and not of that network) and of networking by developing countryparticipants in the IDRC Forum.

In addition, while the external review is primarily aimed at providing feedback to IDRC, the audiencefor the evaluation findings possibly will be members of the competition policy community,particularly pre-Conference Forum participants interested in building on the past experiences of theForums (e.g. regarding the quality and pertinence of the Forums’ research agenda, and relatedefforts at dissemination and network-building).

The first principal intended use of the evaluation is to enable IDRC SEP staff, particularly in theSupporting Inclusive Growth program, to decide on continued options for funding the pre-Conference Forums based on the progress they have made in achieving their objectives since thefirst Forum in 2006.3 The second use is to enable IDRC staff to enhance their understanding of IDRC’ssupport to networking initiatives.

3The seven objectives IDRC identified for the various IDRC Forums can be summarised as follows:

1. Promote lively policy dialogue within the relevant policy community including some of its key, high-level actors.

2. Demonstrate the value of bringing in research based evidence into policy discussions, for example by drawingattention to policy-relevant empirical findings that can be used in debates at home.

3. Give a platform for dissemination of current and completed IDRC-supported research investigations.

4. Contribute in an ICN annual conference to the refinement and greater effectiveness of competition policyinterventions consistent with developmental goals.

5. Support the preparation and worldwide dissemination of some new research papers.

6. Develop ownership of the Pre-ICN Forums.


Figure — Participation of informantsin IDRC Forums

Source: Question 3, Annex

This evaluation focused on results that will inform IDRC decision-making: As stated in the workplan:“This is a decision-oriented evaluation and not an audit of outputs and processes.” Therefore, thefocus is on results and the two following evaluation questions address those achievements fromdifferent angles.

1. To what extent do the outcomes4of the six IDRC Forums represent progress towardsachieving the Forums’ objectives?

2. What is the potential of continued IDRC funding/support for the IDRC Forums toenhance the achievement of the Forums’ objectives in the coming years?

Based on the primary intended users and uses and the evaluation questions, in September 2011IDRC and the evaluators agreed on the evaluation’s design and methodology, including its limitations(Annex ). The evaluation was carried out in the last quarter of the 2011 calendar year.

METHODOLOGY — SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

To generate findings with which to answer the firstevaluation question, the evaluation sought informationfrom three sources:

Documentation on file about the IDRC Forums. Thiscontained a wealth of information, but was not complete,i.e. while it contained agendas, some papers andpresentations and some reports, it did not contain real-timeevaluations by participants of individual forums, attendeelists or all of the papers or reports from all of the meetings.

Developing5 country participants (from Africa, Asia andLatin America and the Caribbean) who had participated inthe IDRC Forums and the ICN Conferences as speakers anddelegates, some subsidised by IDRC, others not.

Developed country participants (from Europe, NorthAmerica and Oceania) who had also participated in the IDRCForums and the ICN Conferences as speakers and delegates.

IDRC does not have a complete list of the participants in the IDRC Forums since 2006 or of theircontact details. As a result, we suggested two solutions to the report’s commissioner at IDRC which

7. Enhance developing country practitioners’ ability to network among each other and with staff of establishedauthorities on the margins of the ICN.

4We agreed to use the concept of “outcome” as defined in IDRC’s Outcome Mapping methodology: significant changes in

social actors, or more specifically, changes in the behaviour, relationships, activities, actions, policies or practices ofindividuals or institutions that were a result of participation in an IDRC Forum.5

We asked but did not require respondents to identify the continent and country in which they are based. Of the 27informants who self-identified from Africa, Asia and Latin America, 22 named their countries: Botswana, Brazil, Egypt,Ghana, India, Israel, Jamaica, Kenya, Mauritius, Mexico, Pakistan, Perú, South Africa, Suriname, Taiwan, The Gambia,Uruguay, Vietnam, and one respondent from a non-OECD but living in Germany. Of the 18 informants who self-identifiedfrom North America, Europe and Oceania, 11 identified their countries: Australia, Germany, Russia, United Kingdom,United States of America and “OECD”. For reasons of confidentiality, we cannot disaggregate by continent and much lessby country.


were approved as reasonable ways of going forward: first, we sought access to the ICN delegates,since all attendees of the Forums stayed on for the ICN Conference. Second, we developed a list ofexperts with which to engage more deeply. The ICN kindly allowed us to send invitations to answerquestions to its email list of 400+ competition policy individuals currently affiliated in one way oranother with the ICN, but in the end fewer than 5% responded.6 The principal informants were overtwo dozen competition policy experts identified by Philip Marsden7 (Annex ).

More benefits could have been identified with a more comprehensive set of respondents with whichto engage, and if there had been a more ‘intentional’ focus or plan by IDRC from the start of theForums for realising outcomes. That is, in addition to the IDRC not being able to maintain a list of theparticipants in each IDRC Forum, IDRC’s support for the Forums was not based on a project withobjectives established in 2006 and plans to be implemented over the for the six years to achievethem. Evaluations also were not undertaken in the period. Therefore, we could not assess what wasachieved compared to what was planned.

Philip Marsden reviewed the documentation on the IDRC Forums since 2006. Together we designedand piloted an on-line survey (Annex ) and, following the pilot-phase, IDRC extended an invitation tothe experts and those registered on the ICN list to complete the survey in complete confidentiality. Afollow-up reminder was sent to many on the ICN list. Virtually all of the experts accepted ourinvitation and served as informants, answering the on-line survey and offering to communicatefurther. We were less successful with the ICN list. Perhaps 5% accepted the invitation, of whom lessthan half offered to be consulted further. Nonetheless, Marsden engaged with the informants whooffered to be confidentially consulted further. These were by and large experts.

In another step, Marsden engaged confidentially through email, telephone and personal interviewswith most of the 34 informants who offered to communicate further with us in order to delve moredeeply into their answers to the survey, especially regarding outcomes. We sought to identifyverifiable changes in individuals, organisations or the ICN itself to which the IDRC Forumscontributed in part or in whole, directly or indirectly, intentionally or not. Through this morepersonal approach we wished to flesh out outcomes and obtain additional ones from these nineteeninformants. However, not enough outcomes were reported for us to consider this attempt to“harvest” outcomes a resounding success. We did collect a number of sample outcomes (and theseare reported throughout our evaluation), but we do not have a body of representative outcomes for2006-2011. The possible reasons for the low response are varied, ranging from informants being toobusy to effect outcomes or report on them, to the lack of outcomes themselves in terms of realchange in behaviours or institutions, for any number of reasons, to the difficulty of reflecting backover six years to identify changes in other social actors.

6The lists of 400+ includes 2 members per ICN agency, and Experts, non-governmental advisers in competition policy and

other attendees of IDRC Forums and ICN Conferences, including all who attended the ICN meeting in 2010.7

An initial experts list of approximately 25 potential expert interviewees was drawn up by Marsden based on theirexpertise in competition and developing country issues, knowledge of the Forums (as evidenced in their agendas),objectivity, and with a view to a reasonably representative regional basis and professional background (officials, judges,academics). S. Joekes was also consulted, but only to see whether Marsden had missed any particularly noteworthyexpert. Through the evaluation process, the list changed and grew slightly – some original potential experts did notengage; others from the ICN email did engage and were judged by Marsden to be experts and added to the list. It shouldalso be noted that despite being offered the opportunity to interview S. Joekes of IDRC we decided to base our evaluationprimarily on non-IDRC informants, so as also to better achieve objectivity. We are grateful for her assistance though in theareas where we requested it.


SAMPLE SIZE AND RESPONDENT PROFILES

The 45 informants who completed the survey about the IDRC Forums’ achievements, limitations andfuture8 represent primarily competition agencies and academic institutions (Annex ). They arepredominantly male, as is the make-up of participants in the Forum and Conference. Ninety per centhave been involved with competition policy for six years or more.9 27 were from developingcountries. Almost all of them — 90% — were seasoned competition policy people with more than 6years’ experience in the field and two-thirds we consider experts (). The 18 informants fromdeveloped countries had a similar profile.

Table — Characteristics of informants

Informants Experts Attendees Male Female < 5years

6-10years

11-15years

> 16years

27 from developing countries (Africa,Asia and Latin America and theCaribbean)*

63% 37% 69% 31% 12% 35% 35% 19%

18 from developed countries (NorthAmerica, Europe and Oceania) 56% 44% 78% 22% 6% 28% 11% 56%

* One informant did not identify her or his sex; one person did not specify the length of her or his professional experiencewith competition policy.

Source: Questions 1, 13 and 14, Annex and Annex

In addition, their attendance is quite evenly spread over the six IDRC Forums 2006-2011. On average,the same number attended as speakers and as delegates. Similarly, with the exception of Oceania,they are quite evenly divided continent by continent. Therefore, we consider the informants’ viewsto be applicable to the six Forums as a whole, which meets the needs of this evaluation. Due to thesmall numbers involved, however, we do not present respondents’ views Forum by Forum. Similarly,we asked respondents whether they had been subsidised by IDRC or not to attend each Forum butthe question was misunderstood.10

On the other hand, the survey captured considerably fewer views as we go back in time, with threetimes the number from those who attended the 2011 conference compared to those who attendedin 2006. Furthermore, a fourth to almost a half (in 2011) report attending only the ICN AnnualConference (and not the IDRC Forum).

To generate data with which to answer the first evaluation question about the success of the IDRCForums, we sought the opinions of the informants about eleven different categories of results. Theseresults we consider to be indicators of the extent to which the IDRC Forums have fulfilled theirgeneral and specific objectives to enable integration of developing country concerns into global

8Actually 62 surveys were begun but only 45 informants answered one or more questions after the first four requesting

general information. These 17 were deleted from the final survey results.9

Other possible constituents would be representatives of law firms and economics consultancies who are not representedas respondents (none having replied), despite being included in the survey request. While their contributions would havebeen valuable in some parameters, particularly in terms of assessing the substantive contribution of the IDRC Forumdiscussions and the rigour of any research presented at the meetings, it is submitted that the primary constituents arecompetition officials and those deeply involved in developing country matters who would be the beneficiaries of the IDRCForums, and as such the absence of the lawyers and economists from the private sector is not a fundamental gap in ourknowledge base for survey purposes.10

The number of people who attended the Forum either as delegate or speaker does not correspond to the number whowere subsidised plus the number who were not subsidised. See Question 3, in Annex 5.


Figure — Informants byregion

Source: Question 12, Annex

competition policy discussions that occur at ICN conferences. For example, we asked to what extenthave the Forums promoted critical and productive debates on the challenges in the application ofcompetition policy in developing countries at an ICN Annual Conference or facilitated thepresentation of new research papers (Question 5, Annex ).

We then went a step further, however. In addition to informants’ opinions about the competitionpolicy areas in which they consider the IDRC Forums were successful (or not), we sought evidence ofspecific, verifiable outcomes in terms of changes in the participants themselves or in other socialactors such as competition agencies. We asked two questions:

1. How much have you benefitted as a result of participating in an IDRC Forum? How and howsignificantly have you changed? This was a multiple choice question11 and nine out of teninformants answered it.

2. Can you briefly describe, in 1-2 sentences, concrete instances of an individual or organisation,including yourself, changing their behaviour, relationships, actions or activities as a result ofan IDRC Forum? Please indicate who changed, when and where, and what did they dodifferently than before the IDRC Forum. In response to this question, less than half theinformants gave an instance or, at most, two of an outcome.

Regarding the second evaluation question about the future of the Forums with or without IDRCsupport, we sought the informants’ views on the importance of the Pre-ICN Forums compared toother initiatives IDRC could take to support the presence of developing country concerns in thecompetition policy arena, namely grants for travel, speakers, research, and publication (Question 8,Annex ). And, if IDRC were unable to continue funding the Forums, we also asked what would eachinformant be able to contribute as a means of measuring their commitment or “ownership” of theseannual IDRC-sponsored events (Question 9, Annex ). Both ofthese questions were also answered by a large majority ofdeveloping and developed country informants.

In spite of the numerically limited sample — which is of coursenot representative of all possible informants from all regions— we consider that we have been able to consult with asufficient number of individuals knowledgeable both aboutthe IDRC Forums and the ICN. Especially but not solely the 29experts from both developing and developed countries whoanswered the survey and whom we were also able to consult,provide valid, independent assessments of the achievementsof the Forums (See Annex .) We recognise that because manyof these informants are competition law and policy experts,they might be most likely to be positive about the IDRCForums. Any effects of such a potential bias however isdiminished to the extent that their vested interest lies

11We asked informants (Question 6, Annex , Annex and Annex ) if they had changed very significantly, significantly,

moderately, slightly, or not at all in these four areas:

Built your capacity in competition policy

Facilitated your dissemination of new evidence about implementing sound competition regimes in developingcountries

Enabled you to influence competition policy in a developing country

Enhanced your networking


Figure — Opinions of informants on how much they benefittedfrom participating in an IDRC Forum (average of answers tofour sub-questions)

Source: Question 6, Annex and Annex

foremost in competition policy rather than in the IDRC Forums themselves. This was confirmed ininterviews where informants indicated for instance that their time is limited for attendinginternational competition policy meetings like the Forums, but they make it a point not to miss theForums because of the quality of discussion and the unique approach to developing country issues.Also, in addition to the informants’ opinion about the results of the Forums, we asked for evidence— concrete instances of an individual or organisation, including themselves, changing theirbehaviour, relationships, actions or activities as a result of an IDRC Forum. Eleven developingcountry informants registered outcomes (question7, ). In sum, we believe we have valid andsufficient data with which to answer the two evaluation questions but of course our answers shouldbe read in light of the methodological limitations we have explained.

RESULTS OF THE IDRC PRE-ICN FORUMS

In this section, we address the first evaluation question: To what extent do the outcomes of the sixpre-ICN Forums represent progress towards achieving the Forums’ objectives?

We asked the informants a series of questions designed to derive evidence of them havingbenefitted as a result of participating in an IDRC Forum, and particularly how significantly they havechanged as a result – i.e. this is an outcomes focus, not an output focus, as agreed with the IDRCteam. (See question 6, Annex .) We used this evidence, along with desk research and follow-upinterviews to elicit their views on the extent that the IDRC Forum(s) contributed to the IDRC’sobjectives for the Forums. The IDRC Forums are essentially meetings of people, to discuss issuesrelating to competition policy in developing countries. As such, we first report on what the people –our informant attendees of these meetings – reported as the types of benefits from the Forums.We then report on specific benefits that they reported in more detail particularly in terms ofbehaviour change, and track this with examples that they provided. Throughout we test, deepenand evaluate the results by reference to desk research concerning the Forums themselves.

BENEFITS TO ATTENDEES OF THE FORUMS

In general, well over two thirds ofdeveloping country participants(Annex ) are benefitting significantlyfrom the Forums, compared tosomewhat less than half ofdeveloped country participants(Annex ). Thus, in the face of theusual concern whether donor-sponsored events are simply ‘nice tohave’ with mild benefits or if they aresomething of significant value, theresults clearly show the Forums arethe latter.

In total, 70% of all informantsreported that the IDRC Forumsbenefitted them moderately to verysignificantly (with 92% of the 27developing county informants and 68% of the 18 informants from developed countries reporting


that level of benefit). (See Figure .) Only a few, i.e. a fifth from developing countries and less thanthat from developed countries reported benefitting only ‘slightly’. Only one respondent reported nobenefits and he was an expert. Indeed, it is a particularly telling finding that in addition to thedeveloping country representatives, all of the other experts in the field and even developed countryrepresentatives reported benefits from the Forums.

Even allowing for some positive bias12 in responses — e.g. from informants who have a vestedinterest in the IDRC Forums continuing — these are significant findings of benefits, and show thatthe Forums were well targeted to the needs of the informants, from both developing anddeveloped countries. This is no mean feat in itself given their different levels of expertise, interestsand backgrounds.

As seen in , the developed country informants benefitted from the IDRC Forums primarily for theirnetworking. As one developing country academic reported: “The forums enhanced my interest andunderstanding of competition policy issues and policy "cultures". Before and after each forum Iattended, I read more, and was able to share some lessons learned with colleagues, in IDRC and inpartner organizations in developing countries.”

Table —Informants’ opinions on how they benefitted significantly or very significantly as IDRC Forumparticipants

Areas of personal benefit Developing Developed

Built your capacity in competition policy 79% 33%

Facilitated your dissemination of new evidence about implementing soundcompetition regimes in developing countries

70% 44%

Enabled you to influence competition policy in a developing country 55% 25%

Enhanced your networking 78% 63%

Source: Question 6, Annex and Annex .

In contrast, developing country informants reported significant benefits right down the board.Thanks to the Forums, over three-fourths reported they enhanced their capacity in competitionpolicy and their networking and almost as many disseminated new competition policy information intheir countries.

One area of particular note is the aspect of increased capacity building. A key benefit of theForums has been the sharing of similar experiences by similarly placed developing countryauthorities and experts, learning from the successes and failures of others, and thus saving themtime and money and enabling them to implement a more effective competition policy in their ownjurisdiction.13 The benefits from the Forums in this regard are thus difficult to capture, but werereported by several delegates and experts as of ‘immeasurable’ value. In this evaluation, however,we were looking for concrete changes in building the capacity of participants that had beeninfluenced by the IDRC Forums and we found some as presented throughout this report.

12We have also been alert to possible negative bias from informants who operate or support what they may perceive to be

programmes competing with the IDRC.13

Confidential interviews with delegates and experts


For example, in the Netherlands IDRC Forum in 2011, delegates discussed a particular tool (marketstudies) which can lead to quick and effective competition enforcement (and which can be moresuccessful in terms of speed and accuracy than cases or other interventions). Also at this meeting,they also exchanged views on how case selection as being critical to building up a complianceculture, and that it was important for a young agency to select some cases affecting final consumersas this will increase media coverage and build recognition of the importance of competition law. Atthis meeting, experts and delegates also discussed the importance of any competition agency – butparticularly young developing country agencies – having significant allies in the political arena, whileretaining operational independence. Developing country officials and experts also noted that thesefactors were important as most countries have some form of state-related anticompetitive activity.It was also viewed as important for developing country agencies to build alliances, and encourageregional cooperation as this was crucial both for effective enforcement against corporate practicesthat may span country borders, but also as a way of defraying costs of enforcement across multipleagencies.

In the light of the IDRC’s goal in supporting the Forums, what is particularly interesting is the factthat over half of developing country informants reported benefits in being able to influencecompetition policy ‘back home’. This is interesting on any number of fronts: first of all, the Forumsare not directed at policy change specifically; they provide research and exchanges of views thatallow such to be a possible outcome. Moreover, none of the Forums’ agendas expressly targetedpolicy reform in developing countries, for example. This is in contrast, for example, to trainingprogrammes for top officials, legislators or aid programmes that expressly aim at influencing change.The IDRC Forums are a series of conferences on developing country issues, which are generallyaimed at multiple objectives, and yet they result in a significant reporting among developing countryinformants of a definite benefit in enabling their ability to influence competition policy in developingcountries.14 This is another significant finding.

Informants from developed countries reported fewer benefits but this is neither surprising nor anegative result. The fact that only 25% of developed country informants identified learning fromthe IDRC Forums that would help them influence competition policy in a developing country (asopposed to 55% of developing country informants) is to be expected. The developed countryinformants may generally have a greater capacity in competition policy themselves. Furthermore,even if they are also involved in developing country issues, for example as external advisors orinterested experts, as many of them are, they do not have any direct ability to influence the policy ofa developing country. The fact that a quarter of them still reported an increased ability to achievesuch influence through these Forums is thus actually quite a significant finding then. Interestingly,almost half the developed country informants reported some benefits in terms of facilitatingdissemination of new evidence about implementing competition regimes in developing countries.We believe this reflects the fact that many of the developed country informants are involved in

14Confidential interviews with delegates and experts

“IDRC fora are learning experiences for me. It is not clear in advance where the learning will come from -interactions with officials from developing countries; sensing the space between what developing countriesneed and what developed countries "offer" (i.e., best practices that meet the needs of developedcountries, which developed countries assume are good for everyone); sensing the politics of makingarguments good for developing countries that developed countries might (or might not) treatsympathetically; the thinking that goes behind my own presentation, and interpolating discussion itgenerates. All of this improves me as scholar and as provider of technical assistance; sometimes a veryinformal provider (I like to help where I can).” – Competition expert from a developed country


developing country work, and thus are appreciate finding new evidence in this policy area, which theIDRC Forums clearly did provide. The developed country informants reported the highest benefitsfrom the Forums in terms of enhancing their networking. This is especially noteworthy because,while it is obvious that such meetings would introduce them to new contacts, our interviewsconfirmed that many of the developed country informants are already heavily ‘linked-in’ to thecompetition policy and developing country networks.15 Nevertheless, the IDRC Forums still providedthem with an increased opportunity to enhance their professional ties and relationships.16

BENEFICIAL RESULTS FOR THE COMPETITION POLICY FIELD

We now examine broader, less personal results reported by the informants, negative or positive,about the IDRC Forum’s contribution, which are summarised in Table . By and large, informantsboth from the North and South considered that the contribution of the IDRC Forums weremoderately to greatly positive.

Table — Results of the IDRC Forums, 2006-2011

For the Forum(s) that you attended, what is your opinion about thesedifferent aspects? To what extent did the IDRC Forum(s) contributeto these results?

Percentage of total respondents per category(All, Developing and Developed)

All 45countries

27 developingcountries

18 developedcountries

Moderate togreat extent



Brought research-based evidence into policy discussions in an ICNAnnual Conference.

86% 85% 88%

Sustained and raised the profile of the 'developing country caucus'among the ICN membership.

80% 80% 81%

Facilitated the presentation of new research papers, or thepresentation of research for the first time at an IDRC Forum.

79% 81% 75%

Enhanced developing country practitioners’ ability to network witheach other and with staff of well-established competition authorities.

76% 81% 69%

Helped to integrate developing countries concerns into the ICN annualconferences.

68% 80% 50%

Gave developing country competition authorities a more prominentrole in the ICN Annual Conference.

68% 65% 73%

Supported dialogue or presentation of papers from IDRC Forums thatinfluenced ICN work products.

64% 65% 63%

Applied research or other learning in debates in a developing country. 62% 54% 75%

Promoted debate on the challenges in the application of competitionpolicy in developing countries at an ICN Annual Conference.

62% 62% 63%

Deepened understanding of the challenge of establishing soundcompetition regimes in developing countries.

59% 52% 69%

Enabled participants to engage in critical and productive debates at anICN Annual Conference (including on its margins).

56% 68% 38%

Source: Informants who had an opinion, Question 5, Annex and Annex .

15Confidential interviews with delegates and experts.



The primary achievement for which there was uniform recognition and the highest reportingamong developing countries was the IDRC Forums’ contribution to research. (Research-relatedbenefits were the first and third key reported benefits overall.) Informants recognised bringingresearch-based evidence into policy discussions in an ICN Annual Conference complemented and thefacilitation of the presentation of new research papers, and the presentation of research for the firsttime at a Forum were a ‘trade-mark’, ‘vital’ and ‘pioneering’ aspect of the Forums, where they can‘explore new approaches and challenges’:

Along with the learning, comes an appreciation for new methods of application and in turn furtherdissemination and exchange of views:

Nonetheless, there was also some criticism that surfaced in the interviews. For example:

It should be noted that this is a lone view in the evaluation and when expressly tested was notrecognised by other informants. That said, there may be a link between this view and the fact thatour third research-related parameter (Applied research or other learning in debates in a developingcountry) was not only towards the bottom of the list of results but also was more strongly the viewof the developed country informants than those from developing countries. This latter finding is noteasily explainable: perhaps the developed country cohort are reporting on what they found helpful

“The IDRC Forums have become a trade-mark for pre-ICN conferences and it is expected that these wouldcontinue. The vital platform given to developing competition authorities to share their research work andpractical aspects of their competition law implementation challenges and lessons provides a usefulfeedback system before a manageable, helpful and non-intimidating audience of diverse experts.” —Developed country competition expert:

“IDRC has been a pioneer on the issue of Evidence-based-Policy Advocacy (especially its Evaluation Dept)and hence it should try to find the application of some of those tools/frameworks …that it has developedfor sharpening its work on competition reforms. … There is probably a greater need for 'Action Research','Investigative Research' - rather than pure academic research on competition issues in DevelopingCountries.” — Developing country competition expert

“IDRC pre-ICN has been a terrific experience. The content of discussions is much clearer than ICN subjects.As developing countries need a set of additional conditions to implement competition policies andcompetition defense, this is a rich environment to explore new approaches and challenges. IDRC meetingshave included this kind of discussion.” — Developing country attendee

“I represent a more experienced agency and was particularly impressed by the last pre-ICN forum. Thespeakers presented interesting new work and issues, the attendees were motivated and interacted. It is aunique forum and one that I'd be sorry to see lost.” — Developed country competition expert

“The competition agency with which I worked gained increased appreciation for the value of research inthe implementation of Competition Policy. Preparing for the IDRC Forums "forced" the staff of the Agencyto sharpen their skills in making presentations and participating in discussions because the groups are smalland there is little possibility of "dodging"/ being lost in the crowd”. — Developing country competitionexpert

”Selection of speakers suffers from personal biases and many a times expert speakers strayed from theboundaries of the session annotations. Many times speakers spoke about their own experiences which werefar away from the designed agenda.” — Developing country competition expert


from the Forums in applying research when they were advising a developing country (as many ofthem do), and as experts they found they had more ability to do this, than did the developingcountry informants, who may not have been in positions to apply such research in this manner.

Otherwise the informant cohort from both developing and developed countries reported that a lotof the research presented was new and of value. At the Turkey IDRC Forum there was a presentationof very new research on behavioural economics. There was always some learning at the IDRCForums, even if it was an exchange of views on similar concerns, as was, after all, intended.17 Duringthe interviews, for example, there were at least some reports from developing country informantsthat actually offer key insights into benefits from the IDRC Forums that they were able to ‘takehome’. A key benefit comes from seeing how other authorities have used research, information andresources, and learning from their successes:

The second highest reported benefit of the Forums relates to sustaining and raising the profile ofthe 'developing country caucus' among the ICN membership. It is important to note here thatwhile there was common support from informants generally for this result there was a real divisionbetween developing and developed country informants in some aspects.

For example, the informants from Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean were more positiveabout the IDRC Forums’ achievements in two areas than were informants from the developedcountries:

In the first area, roughly 40% of the informants from the developed countries consideredthat the Forums’ contribution to enabling participants to engage in critical and productivedebates at an ICN Annual Conference (including on its margins) was moderate to great,which contrasts sharply with the 70% of the informants from developing countries whoconsidered the contribution to be that significant. This is interesting but should be qualifiedby the observation that many developing country representatives had no specific recall ofprecisely what points they or others had contributed at the ICN conference – other than thatthey had been through comments during session discussions. Others may just perceive theIDRC Forum and the ICN Conference to be the same general “event”, and that theircontribution at the former is included in the latter that way. This may particularly be thecase due to our generous wording (ICN... including on its margins) which may have causedsome informants to be thinking of IDRC Forum contributions in their answers. Nonetheless,a majority were clear that they and other developing country officials did have anopportunity to contribute at the ICN Conference itself, and many indeed did so.

17This was revealed in the confidential interviews with delegates and experts. Many reported that they were never

disappointed with the Forums, and always came away with ‘lessons learned’ purely from hearing from their peers whatpolicies or enforcement actions worked or did not work in their particular jurisdiction.

“IDRC forums have " forced" the Competition Agency with which I was associated to see research as anintegral part of the business of competition enforcement in [my developing country].”

— Developing country competition expert

“It helped [[the developing country] Competition Authority in the efforts made by the authority to make thebest use of their limited resources. Specifically, in the balance between enforcement and advocacy.”



In the second area, helping to integrate developing countries concerns into the ICN annualconferences, the differences between the views of developing and developed countriescontrasted in a similar way. These are of course differences of degree but nonethelessnoteworthy. We believe that the same dynamic as explained above may be operating. Thedeveloping countries may feel that they are having some of an impact at the ICNConference, because they are there that week, some speak up, and they have just beenthrough an IDRC Forum dedicated to their concerns. The developed country respondentsmay be reporting solely what they see at the ICN Conference itself.

In sum, we know that while many underfunded developing country officials wanted to attend ICN forits benefits alone, they were more likely to go, and we are told that more did go, once the IDRCForums began. In a few cases (2-3), this is because IDRC funding allowed them to be able to travel toboth events. In far more cases (18-20) though we were told that it was the IDRC Forumsthemselves, and particularly their subject matter and the opportunity to exchange views among like-minded officials and experts, that ‘clinched’ for them the decision to attend the ICN week.18 Inshort, the developing country officials may not have been able to justify attending only an IDRCForum, without the draw also of the ICN Conference; nevertheless, more of them were likely toattend the ICN Conference, and thus see their cohort profile within the ICN membership sustainedand even raised, when there was an IDRC Forum linked to the ICN Conference.19

This reported benefit is also interesting because of the question we asked related to ‘sustaining andraising’ the profile. There were views that this meant more than just ‘maintaining and raising’ forexample, but also ‘sustaining’ in terms of ‘feeding’ the caucus too, in terms of enriching theirexperience, while the ‘diet’ of developing country issues discussed at ICN meetings per se seemed todecline. This finding is expanded on below, relating to our discussion of ‘Influencing the ICN’, but ismentioned here to offer some initial feel for some of the thinking that went into the answers, andwhich was only fleshed out through interviews.

Another top result of the Forums on which three fourths of informants agree is the enhancementof developing country practitioners’ ability to network with each other and with staff of well-established competition authorities. Regarding enhancing developing country practitioners’ abilityto network with each other and with staff of well-established competition authorities, the pattern ofinformants’ recognition of the significance of IDRC’s achievements was very similar for bothdeveloping and developed countries. There is no question that the IDRC Forums have beensuccessful in enhancing networking and alliance-building. Indeed two IDRC Forums focussed onalliance-building directly. First, in the Netherlands 2011 meeting ‘Doing the Right Thing UnderPressure: Agency Effectiveness, Corporate Compliance and Alliance Building,’ discussions focussedon the benefits of building alliances among resource constrained agencies, and also allying them bysector, and developmental goals. Discussants also saw alliances as providing a counterweight toweaknesses in the competition regime substantively, in terms of powers and procedures.20

The positive quantitative data was reflected in the overall tenor of the views expanded upon inanswers to open questions and interviews:

18Confidential interviews with delegates

19Confidential interviews with delegates

20IDRC Pre-ICN Forum on Competition & Development: Record of the Proceedings: ‘Alliance building for a culture of

compliance’ IDRC, 2011


There are several other interesting results in Table primarily relating to the contrast between thepoints of view of developed country participants and those of developing countries. The informantsfrom Europe, North America and Oceania were notably more positive about some accomplishmentsof the Forums:

Although 4 of the 18 developed country informants did not have an opinion, almost all of those thatdid considered that the IDRC Forums’ had “greatly” contributed to a deeper understanding of thechallenge of establishing sound competition regimes in developing countries. Indeed, all but oneconsidered there had been at least a moderate contribution, which contrasts with almost half of thedeveloping country informants who considered there had been relatively little contribution. This isnot unexpected, considering that the developing country officials are likely to be well-aware of someof the challenges already. This was confirmed through the interviews. All interviewees were awareof the challenges they face and share, which are largely similar. What they were not aware of, andbenefitted from through the IDRC discussions, was how to address the challenges, and what policyor enforcement measures worked or did not. With further interviews, we were able to draw outsome of the developing country informants to see what benefits they did report in this area, andsome challenges they did learn more about from the IDRC discussions were identified as follows:

“Through its participation in the IDRC Pre-ICN, since 2006 [our agency] enhanced its alliance building withother government agencies which contributed in part to an increase in the past two years to a 75% rate ofconfirmed resolutions regarding competition principles by [our country’s] judiciary.” — Developingcountry competition expert

“After meeting [a competition expert] at the Pre-IDRC Forum in May 2011, [our agency] is exploring with[the expert] his participation in [our] Regional Center which aims to address the needs and challenges fromthe competition authorities of the region by providing them with capacity building and support incompetition policy implementation.” — Developing country competition expert

“Arising from the Kyoto IDRC Forum, a relationship was developed with the [developed competitionauthority] regarding how they could provide technical assistance to [developing competition authority]through peer learning experiences. ... The process assisted [the latter] in reviewing its competition law(with more severe penalties on cartels) as well as more refined investigations in cases in e.g. the aviationand petroleum sectors. At the Kyoto IDRC Forum, I came to learn of and meet distinguished internationalprofessors in competition law … who have been a source of great inspiration. At the Hague IDRC Forum,another relationship for technical assistance was developed…”


“Prior to May 2011, a [regional competition commission] mandated a study on a [regional] competitionpolicy to revise the enforcement approach of the regional competition policy with a focus on thedistribution of competence between the Commission and the national competition authorities, whichfollowing a preliminary presentation and discussion in the Pre-ICN Forum in The Hague, the study wasenriched and received support from competition authorities, regarding the design of its institutions and thechallenges it raises with regard to enforcement” — Developing country competition expert


There were positive reports from developing country informants relating to relationship-building.This goes beyond mere networking. Here we see officials building and developing relationships thatassist them to more easily develop more formal instruments of cooperation:

Another reported learning how it was important to build relationships and cooperate with bodiesoutside the competition law field:

Then there were reports of learning from actually working together:

There was considerable agreement on the other areas examined in our survey. Some of these godirectly to the overall objective of the IDRC Forums, namely, helping to integrate developingcountries’ concerns into the ICN annual conferences. These are the questions relating to whetherthe Forums were

Supporting dialogue or presentation of papers from IDRC Forums that influenced ICNwork products.

Promoting debate on the challenges in the application of competition policy indeveloping countries at an ICN Annual Conference.

Giving developing country competition authorities a more prominent role in the ICNAnnual Conference.

Here there are similar reports among developed and developing country informants that there wasrelatively lower success seen in these areas. There are still some results that were noted, to besure, but they are lower than both the networking figures and those related to research benefitsfrom the IDRC Forums themselves.

“A study was conducted on certain food products in coordination with 3 other African countries. Theexchange of the information at the meeting sessions has helped [my] Competition authority in itscompletion of its [market] study highlighting concerns and areas not tackled in [our] initial report.”


“As a result of its first participation to the IDRC forum, the [developing country] Competition Authority is inthe process of establishing a memorandum of understanding with [another developing] competitionauthority - I was able to meet with the Competition officials and I will be working in the future with themin the framework of a capacity building program” — Developing country competition expert

“The forums have highlighted the importance of developing solid relationships with organizations otherthan competition agencies.” — Developing country competition expert

“The forums enhanced my interest and understanding of competition policy issues and policy "cultures".Before and after each forum I attended, I read more, and was able to share some lessons learned withcolleagues, in IDRC and in partner organizations in developing countries.” — Developed countrycompetition expert


Specific reports from informants are thus varied but there is a consensus that there is a net benefitto having the IDRC Forums in such proximity to the formal ICN Conference (this is also examined indetail in the next section).

Informants opined that the developing country issues that arise at the IDRC Forums are occasionallyspoken about and thus integrated into the ICN conference, though this does not happen at all asmuch as they hoped.21 They also explained that in the overall IDRC/ICN week itself, ‘productivedebates’ do not occur very often and never at the ICN meetings themselves: the ICN conference ismore about dissemination of information, and coming to agreement on best practices, and sodebate does not factor in the ICN plenary Conference itself (although it occurs in the work streamsduring the year).22

There have been some interesting and productive debates at the IDRC Forums though: in particular adebate in the IDRC Forum in the Netherlands on the degree to which competition agencies shouldbe independent or part of government, and how this might affect their ability to effect change inbusinesses, but also within state enterprises and government departments.23 Some felt that acompetition authority would have more influence if it had Ministerial backing which would help theauthority in particular tackle anti-competitive problems caused or influenced by other governmentdepartments; others were firmly opposed to this, arguing that complete independence from thepolitical level allowed authorities more scope for objectively-based enforcement based on consumerdetriment, and greater credibility.24 Recall though that the IDRC Forums, as the ICN Conference,are not debating workshops, nor are they intended to be; they are instead dissemination events,with very productive exchanges of views and experiences, rather than ’gloves-off’ discussions per se.Thus, the fact that such discussions arose is an interesting finding, and it was very much appreciatedby the interviewees.25

It may be that more influence by IDRC attendees of ICN Conference activity would result as aproduct of a natural evolution and increase in confidence on the part of developing country speakersor delegates if there were increased interaction and familiarity at the IDRC Forums themselves.Several delegates raised this at interview, and suggested the need for continuation of the Forums (toincrease familiarity and shared views) but with perhaps a greater focus on stimulating debate withinthe Forums, so that delegates gain confidence in raising and arguing issues, and then going on topro-actively raise points that they have discussed over the subsequent days at the ICN Conference,directly referencing the IDRC discussions.

This issue of integrating developing country concerns into the ICN programme is such a rich one, andso central a part of the evaluation, that we now devote a section to it.






“The presence and participation of developing countries at the ICN Conference has been decisivelyenhanced by IDRC Forum, even if the ICN Conference does not immediately include these concerns in itsagenda.” — Developing country attendee


BUT DID ALL THESE ACHIEVEMENTS INFLUENCE THE ICN?

The purpose of the IDRC Forums was to influence the ICN Conference. This is described in variousplaces in the Terms of Reference and the evaluation Workplan and essentially aligns with theForums’ general objective of integrating developing country concerns into global discussions thatoccur at ICN conferences (e.g. regarding challenges in the design and implementation of competitionlaw and policy). Most of the results examined in the previous section and table were related to thisgoal. But do they add up to a notable change on the work of the International CompetitionNetwork? This question is quite complicated and requires some unpacking, which has been donethrough desk analysis and interviews with informants.

First, in recent years, IDRC shared its draft Forum programme with the ICN Conference organisersand potentially this influenced their thinking about their own programme.26 Beyond this, however, itwas not possible for a particular IDRC Forum event to affect, formally, the programme of the ICNConference the next day since the ICN Conference programme (agenda, topics, speakers, format ofsessions) is determined months previous to the event, and by agreement with the host country, theICN chair and other members.

That said, through increased familiarity with the issues and confidence both brought on byparticipation in an IDRC Forum, some developing country delegates reported that they were able to‘continue the conversation’ from that Forum when a topic was raised the next day at the ICNConference. This of course was more likely if there was an alignment of topics between thosediscussed at the IDRC Forums and those discussed at ICN. It did not happen very often thoughbecause IDRC Forums have focussed on issues that developing countries want discussed inparticular, which are not the ones that are focussed on at ICN. The ICN Conference programme hasalways intentionally focused on issues of pragmatic importance to all agencies (e.g. analytical andinvestigative techniques and other practical enforcement, policy and advocacy matters faced byagencies the world over), and does not usually have break-out sessions or topics focussing onparticular country-types or regions. Instead, the plenary meeting and the break-outs are arrangedon particular competition policy issues, and the discussion itself is meant to focus on ‘all antitrust allthe time’, and not on – for example – the interests of a particular cohort of the global membershipi.e. developing countries. It is thought that by focusing on issues, rather than regions or agencytypes, the exchange of views will benefit all participants, from whatever area or stage ofdevelopment that they hail.27

The concerns that developing country agencies generally have can be considered to fall into twocategories: one, specific market-related difficulties in the enforcement of particular elements oftheir legislative mandates; and two, contextual or ‘political economy’ difficulties specific todeveloping countries or more particularly specific to countries developing a competition regime.Developed country agencies share the first more pragmatic enforcement-related concern, and theICN Conference programme aims at this one, thus being of interest to both developed anddeveloping countries. That is why both groups attend the ICN Conference – the antitrust topicsinform all agencies.

26Communication from Susan Joekes, 6 January 2012. Also, the respective organisers of the ICN Conference and the IDRC

Forums have over the years communicated increasingly and have exchanged early registrant and potential speaker listsand Forum draft programmes have been shared with the ICN organisers (a skeleton draft ICN conference programme isusually available online a few months in advance.27



Developed countries faced the second kind of ‘political economy’ concern if at all only early on in theintroduction of their competition regimes, but as businesses develop awareness of and compliancewith competition law, these concerns generally tend to fall away. As such, this may be why thesesorts of concerns do not tend to arise in the ICN conference, and why specific focus has been placedon these concerns at IDRC Forums. To complicate matters, there are concerns related to politicaleconomy matters that do arise at ICN conferences, and which are of interest to both developing anddeveloped country agencies: these include concerns that other government departments wish totake measures or encourage business activity that would conflict with competition policy objectives(e.g. transport policy, telecoms, financial services, environmental initiatives) and in this area the ICNadvocacy work stream28 considers and exchanges experiences on such issues, which are of interestto both developing and developed countries.

The ICN conference programme thus cannot be directly affected by an IDRC Forum, and may indeednaturally see less prominence for issues that are solely the concern of developing country asseparate items on the conference agenda itself.29 Notwithstanding this, a clear achievement of theIDRC Forums is that their issues are being talked about among the primary beneficiaries of suchdiscussions, i.e. developing country officials and interested experts; some are implemented or leadto change ‘back home’. Furthermore, the respective organisers of the ICN Conference and the IDRCForums have over the years communicated increasingly and have exchanged early registrant andpotential speaker lists and Forum draft programmes have been shared with the ICN organisers (askeleton draft ICN conference programme is usually available online a few months in advance).Thus, the concerns of developing country officials are placed into the ICN “atmosphere” throughholding the IDRC Forums the day before the main ICN meeting.30

Ironically, in the early years of the ICN, developing country concerns did arise in ICN discussions, andwere on the formal ICN agenda. The fact that they did come up, despite the ICN Conference’sglobal, issues-based and enforcement-related approach, indicates that there is always somepossibility for developing country representatives to speak up and introduce their concerns into theglobal discussions.31

This point raises an important issue about IDRC Forums’ impact on the ICN that needs to beaddressed: How does one judge influence over the ICN Conference when developing country issueswere already present at ICN conferences prior to the introduction off the IDRC Forums? For example,if developing country concerns were already well-developed at the ICN, then even the most dynamicprogramme of IDRC forums would tend to have little effect on the ICN Conference, although thiswould not necessarily be a negative finding. A small effect could represent a major shift. Similarly, ifthe ICN programme did not consider developing country issues at all, even any IDRC Forum couldhave significant influence over the ICN Conference, but this might not necessarily be a particularlyrobust finding. As one might expect, the situation is not as simple as either of those twoapproaches.

The ICN Conference record, and experts contacted during the evaluation, make clear that developingcountry issues were intended to be embedded in the ICN Conference and its work streams, since theorigin of the ICN five years before the introduction of the IDRC Forums. One issue, though, is theextent to which good intentions are able to be carried out in practice. As mentioned, the ICN doesaddress enforcement issues of interest to all agencies including developing countries, and its Agency

28See for example http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/working-groups/current/advocacy.aspx





Effectiveness work is of particular interest to them too and is reported on at the ICN Conferenceevery year.32 Another issue though is whether the specific intention to embed issues of interest todeveloping countries ended up being carried out through the introduction of the IDRC Forumsduring ‘ICN week’ every year, rather than at the ICN Conference itself.

There is no question that at the first ICN Conference in Italy in 2002 one of its three main goals wasto discuss methods to empower developing country agencies and to exchange views on theproblems faced by developing country agencies in garnering acceptance of competition as a value.33

From the outset, the participation by young agencies of developing countries and transitioneconomies in the ICN was considered of high importance to the ICN, and not as a mere ‘act ofcharity’. These agencies have very diverse levels of capacity and experience and a very diverse arrayof domestic needs and resources. Hence, special effort has to be made to ensure that developingcountries and transition economies are able to take part actively in the ICN’s work.34 Indeed, thiswas also a way of attracting such country representatives to the meetings and thereby developingthe membership of the ICN itself. Speakers at the first conference addressed the particularchallenges faced by developing country agencies. In addition to being new and relativelyinexperienced, and under-resourced, these agencies faced businesses that were reluctant to comply,a public that was unaware of competition law, a government that ignored competition policy andsometimes a judiciary that was corrupt, or at the very least unsophisticated with respect tocompetition issues and analysis.

Despite this earnest, initial focus, developing country issues were mentioned only sporadically at thetwo subsequent ICN Conferences until what appears to be the high-water mark for such issues,namely the fourth ICN Conference in Germany.35

Here, the ICN Steering Group mandated that a specific welcome be made to the developing countryauthorities, and a panel was devoted to the needs of ‘young’ competition authorities.36 At thispanel a range of subjects were discussed, all specific to the needs of developing country regimes.These included discussion of concurrent enforcement of competition law in the telecoms andutilities sectors that are particularly important for developing economies. It was noted thatdeveloping agencies needed to cooperate, and this need not take place exclusively within theframework of the ICN; there can also be informal cooperation between agencies. Technicalassistance offered by developed agencies was particularly helpful. Proposals were made relating tohow best to help developing agencies, and these ranged from the specific (setting up a permanentgroup of experts from developed agencies who are familiar with the situation in individualdeveloping countries and who would then go on to assess needs and allocate technical assistance;building a training centre specializing in competition law, to be located in a developing country andstaffed with permanent personnel, with topics of instruction suggested by young agencies) to moregeneral proposals considering new forms of organization and structure to facilitate participation inthe ICN by developing countries. Some delegates suggested that rather than influencing the plenaryprogramme of the ICN Conference itself the best way to get involved in the ICN’s work was via its

32See for example: http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc645.pdf


34One thing that the ICN has not yet been able to do is offer its conference in any language other than English. The IDRC

Forums are available in French as well, which is of particular assistance to West African competition agencies who areparticularly active.35

A Report on the Fourth Annual Conference of the ICN held in Bonn, Germany, on June 6-8, 2005.http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/uploads/library/doc542.pdf36

Confidential interviews with delegates and experts, confirming the discussions at the Bonn meeting and report above.


working groups where it was easy to participate; this was also the best and cheapest way to get veryefficient technical assistance.37

Similarly, the ICN programmes of Internet discussions and conference calls were helpful and cost-effective ways of participating and learning.38 Developing country experts opined at this meetingthat there was a problem with the virtual network element of the ICN, in that while cheap to run, itrelied heavily on the resources of developed agencies and that the agendas would thus usuallyreflect their interests, and the ‘elite’ nature of the organizing bodies made participation by youngagencies difficult.39

Concerns were also raised about the linguistic limitations of ICN, with its only one working languagepreventing participation by some young agencies and stifling ICN’s expansion. 40 It was noted alsothat despite the efforts at creating developing country panels and discussing particular issues, ‘howto enable younger ICN agencies, from developing countries in particular, to participate in definingthe ICN’s conference programme and to become more active in the work of the ICN continues to bea challenge’’.41

One way that the ICN steering group tried to address this was by having the next ICN Conference in adeveloping country (South Africa, also the location for the first IDRC Forum in 2006), and inparticular to use it to start dealing with a topic of particular concern for developing countries,namely the abuse of market power. This choice of topic, incidentally, was a particularly bold step forthe ICN, and displayed an innovative way of dealing with a problem that had arisen within the ICNthat was impeding discussions. The issue of market power (abuse of dominance) was something thatsome developed country agencies did not want to see discussed at all, or at least not yet, at the ICNitself. This was for a range of largely ideological reasons unrelated to the developing country issueitself. Meanwhile other developed country agencies and a large number of developing countryagencies wanted to discuss this issue, the latter in particular because it was a problem that theyfaced in their markets. The solution that arose was to have the issue of market power discussed atthe IDRC Forums themselves, which were launched at the South Africa meeting. It was alsoaddressed in a way that focused on particular aspects of market power issues that related directly todeveloping country concerns, namely, relating to distribution and utilities. Thus, an issue (marketpower) of interest to developing countries and many developed countries, which was beingprevented from being discussed at ICN, was able to be discussed because of the creation of the IDRCForums, and done so in a way that focused on developing country aspects in particular.42

Then something dramatic appears to have happened—developing country competition issuesdisappeared from the formal ICN Annual Conference agenda in 2007-2011.43 This of coursecoincided with the further development of the IDRC Forums. That is, since the creation of the IDRCForums active discussion of developing country issues appears to have migrated from the ICNConference agenda to a more fulsome discussion at the IDRC Forums themselves. One expert’s viewon this for example was indicative and refreshingly frank:

37Confidential interviews with delegates and experts, confirming the discussions at the Bonn meeting and report above

38Ibid.

39Ibid.

40Ibid.

41Ibid.


43The ICN still maintains programmes and work streams that benefit developing country agencies of course.


Other informants at interview struggled to remember the discussions of developing countryconcerns that took place at the ICN, and suggested that they were ‘not serious’ discussions anyway,or were just panels, rather than the substantive exchanges among developing countries as a group,as occurred at the IDRC Forums. Either way, clearly, the creation of the IDRC Forums provided theopportunity for developing country concerns to be discussed more fully, but in doing so may havereduced the need for them to be discussed at the ICN Conference itself. It is also noteworthy thatwhile academics (and private sector experts) participate in ICN Conferences, they do not presentresearch, as academics do at IDRC Forums. Delegates reported that this aspect enriched thediscussions at the forums.

This is not surprising, however, because the IDRC Forums clearly offered a venue and platform todiscuss such issues, and one can imagine that as the meetings are part of the same ‘week’ or ‘trip’there would be no pressure or incentive for the ICN organisers to repeat the discussions ofdeveloping country issues the next day at ICN meetings. Thus, in our view as evaluators acomplementarity developed with IDRC Forums becoming ever more focused and involved withdeveloping country issues, and the ICN Conference focusing more and more on practicalenforcement related issues of interest to all authorities whether developed or developing – e.g.,evidence gathering, analytical methods, investigative processes, as detailed above.44

That said, it is not the case that developing country issues have slipped off the programme of the ICNentirely; there are still work streams during the year that go to addressing some of these concerns.The ICN’s Agency Effectiveness Working Group, for example, has a mission to identify key elementsthat contribute to the successful capacity building and competition policy implementation indeveloping and transition economies by making use of those more experienced agencies’ knowledgeand other relevant recommended practices. This mission began in the Swiss ICN meeting in 2008.At the Netherlands ICN Conference in 2011, there was also discussion of the challenges faced by newYounger Competition agencies in the Investigation of Cartels, which was led by a developing countryparticipant.

In summary, has the creation of the IDRC Forums led to an increase in focus of discussion ofdeveloping country issues in the global competition policy community? Of course it has. The issuesdiscussed at the IDRC Forums are detailed and involve expert exchanges among developingcountries and other experts relating to diverse and detailed areas of direct interest to developingcountries and the challenges their officials face.

Has this influenced the ICN Conference programme directly? This is not clear. If anything, it maywell be that the creation of the IDRC Forums, instead of influencing the ICN programme to considerdeveloping country issues in more detail, actually served to shift developing country issues from the


“The IDRC [forum] has provided an opportunity to discuss developing country issues in the vicinity of theICN participants. I am less convinced it has contributed to the ICN taking developing country issues intoaccount. Perversely, there is a perception that it has become the slot to park developing country issues asopposed to integrating them further into the ICN conference discussions.” — Developed countrycompetition expert

“The IDRC pre-ICN forums constitute an important forum for capacity building, for focused discussion ofdeveloping country issues and for raising issues that subsequently find their way into the mainstream workof the ICN.” — Developing country competition expert


ICN to a more conducive environment for discussion, namely the IDRC Forums themselves.45 Onsubstance, we consider this to be a good thing particularly if it allowed the issues to be discusseddeeply among developing country officials; but if one’s parameter is ‘Influencing the ICN Conferenceagenda’ then it would be less so. Alternatively, it may be that the discussion of developing countryissues was never going to take off at the ICN, and the creation of the IDRC Forums came at just theright time, and provided a platform for discussion at a time when developing country officials werealready feeling disappointed in the ICN exchanges.46 Further, even if developing country issues hadbeen added to the ICN Conference agenda, they might conceivably have translated into break-outsessions, and perhaps in some years, appeared at the periphery of the Conference, which would nothave allowed for the higher profile exposure and deeper discussion of developing country issuesafforded by the IDRC Forums. Either way, there is a clear benefit to developing country attendeesdirectly from the IDRC Forums, no matter whether their exchanges of views seep back into the ICNprogramme or not.47 There is also a view that the developing country discussions at the IDRCForums do actually influence the ICN work programme itself, if not the agenda of a particularconference:

It is also important to note that it is clearly the case also that it is viewed as a significant benefit tothe ICN itself to have these IDRC Forum discussions so close to the ICN Conference:

In addition to the legitimacy point inherent in the quote above, there has also been a benefit to theICN that may be causally related to the discussion of market power issues that occurred at the IDRCForums – since discussion of these points at the IDRC meetings, a work programme has begun at theICN meetings on these topics. Being able to discuss those topics at the IDRC Forums may thus haveallowed support to build to let them enter the ICN discussions despite initial resistance. Moreimportantly though, they lead to learning on the part of developed country officials, in particular,behaviour change and some outcomes in developing countries, which is surely what matters morethan influencing the global discussion necessarily.48 These points will be examined in a subsequentsection of this evaluation.




48Indeed at interview, several developing country informants noted that the ICN is of interest to all agencies, even though

discussions there are led primarily by developed country officials. An issue does not have to be solely specific todeveloping country agencies for it to be of interest to them. Many issues discussed at ICN relate to investigativetechniques, how to gather and handle evidence, and analytical methods. Developing country officials benefit from thesediscussions as well.

“I don't detect a great deal of interest in taking developing country issues on head-on within the ICN. Butby teeing up these issues immediately before ICN, it attracts ICN attendees and subtly puts them on theagenda, which consequently influences the way people think about issues within ICN itself.”

— Developed country competition expert

“A key challenge for ICN is to articulate how competition policy benefits real people in developing countries-- without that, political support for competition policy will wither. IDRC Forum is one of the few institutionsthat tries to do that, and competition policy in developing countries will be in real trouble if that effortfails.” — Developed country competition expert


A final point to note is that some of the IDRC Forums contained topics that were not of interestsolely to developing countries. For example, how the financial crisis was impacting on competitionpolicy, and vice versa, or issues relating to advocacy with other government departments, or someenforcement related subjects. These issues also came up on occasion at the ICN Conference itself.Some similarity of topics as between the Forums and the Conference meant that it was more likelythat subject discussions begun at the Forums would continue at the Conference, and therebydeveloping country issues would enter into ICN discussions, without the need for a dedicated formalinfluence on the ICN Conference agenda per se.49

It should be noted that at the IDRC Forums the discussion of these broader topics was alwaysformally tied, clearly intentionally, to particular aspects that might impact on developing countries:for example, in discussing the financial crisis, and its impact on competition policy, the focus at theForums was clearly on how this might uniquely make it more difficult for developing, weak, orotherwise new agencies and regimes to implement robust competition policy interventions – inother words, if the developed agencies were having such trouble working effectively in the crisis,then how could developing country agencies be expected to work well, and whatchanges/adjustments in position would they need to do to be able to be effective.

Conclusion: Thus, while the discussion of developing country-specific issues - and broader issuesalso of concern to developing countries – occurred at the IDRC Forums, it can be said that theadjacency of the Forums and similarity of issues allowed the developing country concern to enter intoICN discussions, even if it did not formally influence the ICN Conference programme itself.50

OUTCOMES THAT REPRESENT IDRC FORUMS’ IMPACT

In this section we report on concrete instances of an individual or organisation changing theirbehaviour, relationships, actions, activities or even institutions changing their policies and practicesas a result of an IDRC Forum, as reported by delegates to one or more Forums. Some outcomeshave been captured in previous sections above, but other findings are best captured directly, fromthe answers themselves. Although impressive, we recognise that these outcomes are solelyexamples, anecdotal evidence, of the influence of the IDRC Forums. Nonetheless, although notconclusive we consider them to be illustrative of the deeper, more enduring effects of the IDRCForums on specific social actors.

We see evidence of individual learning, and evidence of more focused and relevant analysis beingapplied to developing country needs and concerns:



“I started to think about the impact on consumers and interaction with competition from a much broaderperspective than a UK / Europe only focus.” — Developed country attendee

“We shifted our focus from concentrating on enforcement in the first few years to concentrating onadvocacy.” — Developing country attendee


We also see benefits from those invited to present at the IDRC Forums, who listen to developingcountry delegates views and then, as competition policy decision-makers, alter their activities as aresult of the Forum’s influence. For example:

Improvements in competition authorities’ activities can have multiplier effects in savings toconsumers and particularly vulnerable consumers. We understand that IDRC work on CompetitionResearch for Economic Development (CRED) has recognised this as being a particular reason tosupport research and exchanges of views that will improve competition policy analysis, advocacyand enforcement particularly in developing countries.51

51Point made to us by S. Joekes of IDRC.

“ICN environment is very much dominated by the developed countries and mature competitionauthorities. The reactions of developing countries during the IDRC pre ICN Conferences helped torelativize some of the consolidated or consolidating recommended practices. I, personally, revised some ofmy beliefs regarding the application and the priority of merger and acquisitions controls in developingcountries, including in my own reality. Market foundations, other than market structures, should bepresent in the country before concentration controls. The role of judiciary and the pervasive difficultiesthat all countries face to enforce administrative decisions, such as antitrust, is very well illustrated by thedeveloping countries experiences and have helped me to better address the relationship with the judiciarysystem.”

— Developing country attendee

“I met with another head of antitrust agency, and revived our written (but not used) agreement forcollaboration.” — Developing country competition expert

“Consumers' International was invited to speak on remittances and became enthused about the issue andare now making the issue the theme for World Consumer Rights Day 2012 and putting together a project tolink consumers' organisations and competition agencies to work on the issue.” — Developing countryattendee

“The IDRC pre-ICN forum in Istanbul exposed a new [the behavioral aspect] thinking in analysis ofcompetition cases in my organization.” — Developing country attendee

“IDRC fora are learning experiences for me. It is not clear in advance where the learning will come from -interactions with officials from developing countries; sensing the space between what developing countriesneed and what developed countries "offer" (i.e., best practices that meet the needs of developed countries,which developed countries assume are good for everyone); sensing the politics of making arguments goodfor developing countries that developed countries might (or might not) treat sympathetically; the thinkingthat goes behind my own presentation and interpolating discussion it generates. All of this improves me asscholar and as provider of technical assistance; sometimes a very informal provider (I like to help where Ican). I would cite to [a young developing country academic] at the last IDRC pre-ICN forum. [He], who isyoung and very eager to understand and contribute to better law and policy in Africa, was a presenter.Preparing for the conference provided [him] with an opportunity to think more deeply about some of hisideas, and to improve them; also to improve his scholarship. I think the forum was important to him, andhelped him assimilate his knowledge and hone his skills.” — Developed country competition expert


POTENTIAL FOR CONTINUED IDRC SUPPORT FOR THE PRE-ICN FORUMS

Now we address the second evaluation question: What is the potential for continued IDRCfunding/support for the Pre-ICN Forums to enhance the achievement of the Forums’ objectives inthe coming years?

To evaluate what informants would consider would enhance the achievement of the Forum’sobjectives in the future, we asked them to rank what they thought would be most useful to them.The results are in Table .

Table — Opinions of what informants consider would be highly important for IDRC to fund in the area ofcompetition policy (percentage of responses)

Among the principal possibilities that IDRC could fund incompetition policy related work how would you assessthe IDRC Forum?

Developing countryinformants

Developedcountry

informants

IDRC Forums 72% 71%

Travel grants 55% 50%

Speaker grants 48% 42%

Research grants 83% 50%

Publication grants 61% 40%

Source: Question 8, Annex and Annex .

Here we see that the highest reported figures overall were clearly for the IDRC Forums, with almostthree quarters of all informants selecting this option. This is a significant amount, and it isinteresting that approximately the same percentage of developing country and developed countryinformants agreed to the same degree with supporting the IDRC Forums. Similarly, there is supportfrom both groups for travel and speaker grants. The differences are for publication and especiallyresearch grants for which significantly more developing country informants than those from thedeveloped countries consider these as priorities. Developing country informants even preferresearch grants to the IDRC Forums, which is very interesting. At interview, this was explained byreflecting their interest in pragmatic direct assistance. They appreciated though that researchgrants targeted at individual developing country agencies would not have as broad a benefit to thewhole cohort as the IDRC Forums do. At interview, no delegate who indicated a supported researchgrants thought that the IDRC Forums should stop or be replaced by a grants programme. Incontrast, developed country informants were not as supportive of research grants, and even less oftravel grants or publication grants – most likely reflecting their greater access to funding.

Ownership and contribution

In our survey, to try to assess the extent to which the IDRC Forums had developed a degree ofownership among the informants, we posited a possible counter-factual to focus the minds of therespondents. We asked whether and how respondents would contribute if IDRC was unable tocontinue the pre-ICN Forum meetings due to funding or other constraints (Table ).

The vast majority of informants offer primarily expertise; less than a third offer organisationalsupport and a very small proportion offer financial support. This is not surprising: our informantsare either officials or academics primarily, who have expertise but little financial capacity. What is


Table — Potential contribution of informants toForums

Developing Developed

Yes, organizational 30% 22%

Yes, financial 7% 6%

Yes, expertise 70% 83%

No 7% 6%

Source: Question 8, Annex and Annex

interesting from the table though is thatwhile over 80% of developed countryinformants offered expertise, nearly 70%of developing country informants alsooffered expertise. This may show thatdespite the Forums also being anopportunity for an indirect informal‘training’ for younger developing countryofficials, really the expertise level isalready high, and so the Forums shouldmaintain their focus on exchanges ofviews and experiences.

Comparable fora

One of our final areas of analysis involved asking informants to consider whether there werecomparable fora to the IDRC Forums. This question indirectly goes to the question of continuationof the Forums.

Seventy-eight per cent of informants reported international fora as being most comparable, andcentred primarily around UNCTAD, the ICN itself, and to a lesser extent, the OECD Global Forum onCompetition, and the academic grouping ASCOLA. Over a third of informants cited regional forasuch as the OECD’s Latin American Competition Forum, and just over another third of informantsnoted that there might be some comparable national fora run by individual agencies. Those citingUNCTAD noted though that, while it is a formal global body dedicated to developing countrycompetition law issues, with regularly scheduled meetings of officials from agencies andgovernments in such economies; the issues discussed are largely of a policy, rather than ‘hands-on’nature, as at ICN or IDRC meetings. They serve a useful purpose, but require greater preparation onthe part of attendees, inter-governmental consultation prior to meetings, and more resources.Some informants noted that there was less content, expertise and interaction at UNCTAD meetingsthan at IDRC Forums.

In terms of regional comparators, there is the developed-country grouping, the OECD, which has anoutreach programme for developing countries, as well as regional centres in such regions. Otherregional fora mentioned by informants included COMESA, SADC, the African Competition Forum,Korean International Workshop on Competition Policy, East Asia Competition Forum, COMPAL, ICAP,and the ASEAN Experts Group on Competition.

The outreach work of the OECD is excellent, and extremely pragmatic.52 With respect to the formalmeetings of the OECD Global Forum on Competition, it was noted by some informants that whilehelpful, these discussions involve a dialogue primarily between developed countries and developingcountries, addressing to a great degree the issues of interest to both groupings in equal measure.The areas discussed also primarily relate to broader areas of policy, as with UNCTAD. No onethought such discussions were unhelpful – what was emphasised though was that the IDRC Forums


“I know of no other fora in which the discussion continues at the same level. UNCTAD attempts the subjectmatter, but the institution is politicized and debate is often superficial. IDRC is the only place I know ofwhere it is done in an academically rigorous way by persons qualified to do so.” — Competition expert


are different on two counts. They involve a discussion among developing countries primarily aboutdeveloping country issues, and where topics/concerns become broader they are targeted to howdeveloping countries will address such concerns. Secondly, developing countries desperately needto learn and exchange experiences relating to cases, and the IDRC Forums provide a good basis forthis, in addition to other policy instruments discussed at other fora, e.g. advocacy.

ACHIEVEMENT OF THE IDRC FORUMS’ OBJECTIVES

In this section, we summarise some primary findings and offer reflections regarding the achievementof the seven individual objectives of the IDRC Forums. It should be recalled though that theseobjectives were reconstructed by IDRC from different documents in their files during the course ofthe scoping of the evaluation in 2011, rather than as an organised and intentional plan beforesetting up the Forums in 2006. It is thus inappropriate to try to find direct links between eachobjective and a particular Forum, or for all Forums to satisfy every objective. Our findings should beread in that light.

First, the general objective of the Forums: enable integration of developing country concerns intoglobal discussions that occur at ICN conferences regarding the challenges to competition policy.

Despite mixed reports from informants, and some anomalies that have been discussed, it seems thatthe IDRC Forums satisfy this general objective. The subsequent actual involvement of developingcountry officials in ICN meetings could be greater, and the influence of IDRC Forums on the ICNConference agenda is certainly not noticeable, but as discussed above, we have identified othermore subtle effects that go towards satisfying this ‘integration’ objective. These are aptly capturedin the following report:

The IDRC Forums’ impact becomes clearer when we examine the achievement of the seven specificobjectives.

1. Promote lively policy dialogue within the relevant policy community including some of its key,high-level actors

It is clear that the dialogue at the IDRC meetings has at times been viewed as stimulating anduseful.53 Our parameter for this was a series of reports of productive exchanges of views. This isclearly met. There are occasions, for example relating to discussions of independence of agencies,where some debate has occurred, but the primary atmosphere has been thought provoking, with anexchange of helpful views among participants struggling with similar issues. Debate itself may notbe what is necessary at such Forums. If anything, we have senior officials and experts, and in manycases, agency heads, fully engaged for a day’s discussion of developing country concerns related tocompetition policy. Several of these agency heads return year on year and thus clearly think themeetings are of value. Another note from an informant is helpful:

53Confidential interviews with delegates and experts – several informants returned in subsequent years and no one

reported leaving part way through a Forum

“The IDRC fora have been invaluable. Without them, I think there would be a total discounting ofdeveloping country concerns, as well as lack of a venue for bringing together individuals with important likeconcerns. They are important intellectually, socially and politically.” — Competition expert


2. Demonstrate the value of bringing in research based evidence into policy discussions, forexample by drawing attention to policy-relevant empirical findings that can be used in debates athome.

As the IDRC Forum programmes display, the majority of people who have presented at IDRC Forumsis sharing research or findings from their own analysis or experience, and this is crucial to theForum’s success.54 The intention is clearly to avoid academic pontificating or ‘lecturing’ fromagencies or experts – what is achieved is an exchange of views among experts and officials based onreal-life cases.55 What is presented at the Forums is relevant to the issues on the agenda, which areguided by the needs of the attendees, as identified by the IDRC staff organising the Forums and theiradvisory group of officials and experts. There have been some examples of ‘take home’ benefits, asreported anecdotally by several developing country informants in the findings above. In addition,some particularly informative points include:

3. Give a platform for dissemination of current and completed IDRC-supported researchinvestigations for dissemination of current and completed IDRC-supported research investigations.

Two IDRC publications were disseminated at the IDRC Forums, both reported as being particularlyhelpful and comprehensive reports.56 These included the IDRC Forum in Japan, where the IDRCpublication on “Competition and Development: the power of competitive markets” was launched,and in Russia the IDRC publication “Competition Law in Action” was discussed. It has been reported

54For IDRC Forums 2007-2010, in “PAD 104181 (2007 to 2010 pre ICN Forums). IDRC Forum 2011, in “PAD 105649 (2011

pre ICN Forum)”, “105649 PAD - March 1 draft”, and “PAD 105649, March 2011”.55

Confidential interviews with delegates and experts; see also all programmes and reports of the Forums prepared forIDRC, and on file with IDRC.56


“At the May 2011 IDRC pre-ICN Forum in The Hague, 3-5 academics and competition enforcers stated thatthey now regularly attend the IDRC pre-ICN Forums because it is the only venue which gives developingcountries the possibilities to have a worldwide discussion and share experiences on the commoncompetition issues they face.” — Developing country competition expert

“At the May 2011 IDRC pre-ICN Forum in The Hague, 5-7 scholars and delegates stated that before theyhad not been aware of the specific challenges in [a developing country region] of an over-centralized systemthat undermines the effectiveness of the regional law at the national level, the lack of resources of thenational competition authorities and that the Commission itself is under staffed, and the lack ofcollaboration of the national competition authorities.” — Developing country competition expert

“It would be unfortunate if the IDRC were to curtail its involvement of developing countries in its researchprojects …IDRC has been helpful in training and providing for the opportunity and the platform for youngagency experts to discuss among themselves their findings and difficulties which enriched their analyticalskills.” — Competition expert

“The IDRC pre-ICN forums …are important opportunities for the IDRC to showcase its important work in animportant area of economic and social policy.” — Competition expert


that at each Forum two-to-three presentations were based on research undertaken with IDRCfunding, for example from the IDRC CRED programme.57

Despite being substantive publications in themselves, the two IDRC publications are part of a longlist of highly-relevant IDRC-supported publications (available at Annex ) that could have been placedon the agenda or, at the least, distributed at the Forums.58 It is surprising that a research body likethe IDRC did not make more use of these Forums as dissemination opportunities for such researchbut then again, perhaps as this was only one objective, it was never intended that IDRC researchdominate the event. Then again, the Forums are ‘forums’, i.e. they exist primarily to provideexchanges of views among the members, and as such, despite dissemination of IDRC research beingone of the objectives of the Forums, there are other goals as well which need to be considered. Inaddition, it may be that it was difficult to increase dissemination of publications since the Forumswere essentially organised solely by an IDRC representative, head office support staff and a group ofsupportive experts and speakers, with myriad things to consider and arrange, and with the lack ateach meeting of an IDRC regional office to support the Forums.

If dissemination of IDRC supported research and publications is to remain an objective of theForums, it deserves more systematic attention. It would be a good idea to focus in particular onwhat research is most helpful, ensure it gets to delegates in good time, and has a specific slot on theForum agenda for discussion. Since these mechanisms may not have been in place for all of the firstForums, it is actually admirable that two fulsome IDRC publications were disseminated anddiscussed, and informants did appreciate them.

4. Contribute in an ICN annual conference to the refinement and greater effectiveness ofcompetition policy interventions consistent with developmental goals with particularreference to:

i) The distributive role of competition by way of the impact of competition policy measures onconsumers was addressed nicely in particular at the Turkey IDRC Forum, with new thinking onbehaviour economics providing insights for all attendees on the inter-relationship betweenconsumer behaviour and competition policy responses, and vice versa. This meeting was theprimary means by which IDRC discussants addressed the distributive role of competition, e.g.distributive justice, social aspects, and the impact of anticompetitive practices on poor andvulnerable consumers. Key topics at the South Africa IDRC Forum also related to these issues,and included: can competition law and enforcement contribute to attaining the MillenniumDevelopment Goals; Medicines and the poor; Distribution and the price of food and Sustainableaccess to safe drinking water.

ii) The adequacy of competition institutions to scrutinise and modify state aids and other crisis-related measures imposed by governments in times of economic shocks was addressed directlyat the Swiss IDRC Forum, with leading speakers and academics offering their views on whycompetition policy is all the more important at such times, albeit with a need to be flexible so asnot to be overruled by competing policy objectives directed at resolving crisis issues. Expertsalso discussed the need in such times to think beyond national measures and to consider

57Point made by Susan Joekes to evaluators.

58These are: 2008, “Competition and development : the power of competitive markets” Joekes, Susan P.; Evans, Phil and

2007 “Competition law in action : experiences from developing countries” Stewart, Taimoon; Clarke, Julian; Joekes, Susan.


regional competition initiatives. The Russian IDRC Forum also discussed challenges faced bycompetition authorities during economic transformation.

iii) The types of alliance building required to enhance enforcement and advocate effectively forcompetition principles was addressed directly at the Netherlands IDRC Forum, as well as at theSwiss IDRC Forum The advocacy points are raised at almost every IDRC Forum, and also relateddirectly to ICN work streams in this regard.

With respect to the overall part of this fourth objective – contribution in an ICN Conference to therefinement and greater effectiveness of competition policy interventions consistent withdevelopmental goals – there has been a detailed consideration of responses and interview pointsabove in the section “Has this influenced the ICN Conference programme directly?”.

In summary, there is little question from the desk research and interviews that the IDRC Forumscomplement and supplement the discussions at the ICN Conference. Viewed by the informants as awhole, the two events provide related aims but have been reported to us to work together largelyvery well both by officials closely connected with organising the ICN Conference itself, and bydeveloping country officials. This evaluation has already addressed the issue of whether successfulachievement of this objective should be measured by examining whether developing country issuesare or are not on the ICN Conference programme itself, or discussed actively in the separate ICNConference itself. In our view, it is the adjacency of the two meetings, and the relevance of thetopics and activity at each, that contributes to successful attainment of their objectives.

5. Support the preparation and worldwide dissemination of some new research papers

Our analysis of the papers and discussions at the IDRC Forums shows that the topics are of sharedinterest, and consistent with the stated intention of the Forums of exchanging views amongsimilarly-minded developing country officials sharing similar challenges. Furthermore, the papersoffered by developing country participants are usually country-specific, and thus are ‘new’ to otherdelegates. More than this though, they contain important lessons and sharing among the delegateson issues with which they are already familiar but are seeking to identify new enforcement andpolicy techniques. In addition to this, at some meetings, most notably in Turkey, research related tobehavioural economics that was new to all was presented at the Forums. It is also notable that theOECD requested an opportunity to present at the IDRC Forum in South Africa its research on thedistribution sector. The Swiss IDRC Forum was hailed as a ‘stellar dissemination event’ by oneparticipant.

6. Develop ownership of the Pre-ICN Forums

This is an objective also with positive findings. First, in the opinion of many of the developing anddeveloped country informants we interviewed, the developing countries “set, own and run”59 theagenda at IDRC Forums; others felt that the fact IDRC was organising the Forums meant that theyfelt ‘reassured’ that the agendas would reflect their concerns. Many agreed that the Forums feltlike they were ‘theirs’ in the sense that the issues discussed were uniquely of interest to developingcountries. No informant suggested otherwise. The forums also benefitted from an informal ad hocadvisory committee of experts who assisted in planning the programme of the early IDRC Forums.

59Confidential interviews with delegates and experts – this particular quote is from one delegate, but others expressed

similar sentiments.


Secondly, there is clearly a willingness on the part of the informants to help with the continuation ofthe Forums. A substantial number of Informants offered to assist by providing expertise, some toprovide organisational support and a few to provide financial assistance. Considering the limitedadministrative and financial resources available to the IDRC programme staff who organise theForums, these are important findings. They are also notable indications of the importance of that theinformants who offer assistance place on the IDRC Forums. That is, the informants themselves comefrom offices that have very limited resources and yet they are offering support where they can tothe continuation of the Forums. They are also significant since there does not seem to have been aconscious effort to build ownership amongst the delegates. For example, while countries clearlymust have been asked to provide ideas for topics, send speakers, and to attend, there was no effortto share the burdens of organising the forums, set up formal organising committees, or otherwisecontribute through logistical or financial assistance. Furthermore, there was not any formalevaluation during the life of the Forums of which we are aware. If there had been, action could havebeen taken to heighten ownership in other ways to further ‘buy in’ and involvement.

The following comment reflects this feeling of development and ownership that may be built on toincrease ownership and sustainability:

One informant offered the following suggestions that relate to developing sustainability andownership through linkages and other means:

7. Enhance developing country practitioners’ ability to network among each other and with staffof established authorities on the margins of the ICN.60

The networking opportunities provided by the IDRC Forum, the ICN Conference and their adjacencyare clear and well supported in the findings:

60The ICN Conference is English language only, whereas in line with Canadian official policy IDRC provides French-English

(and local languages on occasion, e.g. Russian, Turkish) interpretation for each Forum, addressing (only in part of course) apowerful geographically exclusionary constraint on developing country participation in the ICN.

“Donor sensitisation - not many donors are interested in competition policy and law issues. Given IDRC'sinterest on this issue (and capability to undertake/support research), they should contribute in spreadingthe awareness in the donor community about benefits that competition reforms can lead to:

i. Given the need to develop local capacity - IDRC should get involved in developing courses/programmesin Developing Country Universities on 'Competition Policy and Law issues'.

ii. In addition … IDRC could also think about developing a 'Resource Centre on Competition Issues' (may bein Nairobi) - so that competition agencies from Sub-Saharan Africa can use that as a reference point, forknowledge and technical advice.”

— Competition expert

“IDRC have a great track record in putting new issues on the table and in getting developing countrydelegates engaged in ICN in a way they could not do otherwise...it would be a great shame if this halted orwas diminished in any way. The beauty of this work is it grew organically from the demands of developingcountry agencies and researchers for access to ICN and a desire to balance the agenda. To have someone sitin Canada deciding whether this is legitimate or not is a subversion of what IDRC should be about.”

— Developing country expert


It is also important to note that the IDRC Forums themselves are not ‘networks’ per se, but theysupport networking activity and learning by their attendees, and also support the adjacent network,the ICN. This networking leads to alliance-building, and collaboration. Further research wouldusefully identify more actual delegates (recall the contact details were unavailable to us asevaluators) and examine more of how collaboration and further networking may have developedand in what areas. A useful starting point for that may be the regional initiatives among developingcountries. It appears clear from our findings above, however, that some of the benefits of networks– in particular the ‘networking’ and learning – is clearly happening through the Forums, without adiscrete ‘network’ being created.

INFORMANTS’ SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT

In the course of our evaluation, informants made suggestions for the future, which we set out belowfor consideration by IDRC officials and further discussion.

“The IDRC pre-ICN forum is an important forum for discussing competition issues of interest to developingcountries. The fact that it is organized back to back with the ICN conference give the forum a great visibility.The IDRC forum is now known and competition law experts around the world attend the forum as part ofthe ICN conference. I would strongly support the continuation of the IDRC pre- ICN forum.”


“It is important to keep funding them and if possible let it be a full one day event.” — Developing countrycompetition expert

“I think that the IDRC Pre-ICN Forum should be a platform1. to present the research commissioned by IDRC2. to give opportunity to competition officials/academia from developing countries to express their viewpoint in the global standard setting”


“The overall effectiveness of these events may be improved by more active participation of a wider rangeof developing countries, as well as a change in the approach towards speakers and format of these eventsto move away from the "usual suspects". I recognise that is difficult to makes these events more relevant tonon-developing countries to encourage their engagement on development issues beyond what is often atoken gesture before what many regard as the main event.”


“[Our agency] believes that IDRC can help … by participating in regional initiatives that seek to discuss andprovide assistance on themes that are aligned to the developing country’s needs. For instance, it couldform a partnership with [our] Regional Center …specifically in the organization of capacity buildingactivities, country specific technical assistance, elaboration of regional market studies, etc.”



CONCLUSIONS, REFLECTIONS AND RECOMMENDED POINTS FOR DISCUSSION

Based on our research into the IDRC Forums, the papers, presentations, reports, and the surveyresponses, and follow-up interaction with the informants, our key findings can be synthesised intothese bullets:

1. There is clearly no support for winding down or cancelling the IDRC pre-ICN Forums amongrespondents.

2. The Forums are viewed as a unique and very valuable event for introducing, sharing anddeveloping learning regarding competition issues in developing economies. The financialsupport and links with each other, developed country officials and academics that the IDRC haspromoted have been very much appreciated by all informants.

3. The learning occurring at the IDRC Forums is very valuable to many participants; it is unique andpragmatic and helpful to developing countries and the experts who advise them.

4. It is very significant that what is essentially a conference series, with a mandate to have generalappeal to all attendees from around the world records some positive results in behaviour change‘at home,’ back in developing countries. when it was not devoted to any specific ‘change’objective, whether through training or treaty.-

5. Given that some behaviour change has already been recorded under even these parameters,then more could be expected if the IDRC Forums engaged in systematic monitoring andevaluation of the Forums and any ‘take-home’ lessons that are reported and implemented.Added to this could be the idea of trying to attract higher numbers of senior officials fromdeveloping countries who can build on the learning from IDRC Forums, and effect change in theirown jurisdictions.

6. The IDRC Forums are viewed as unique, and would be hard to replace; other fora exist, but theydo not address the issues in as pragmatic or as expert as way as the IDRC and then the ICNdiscussions do.

“I strongly believe that it should continue but with more focus on after event support and networking.”— Developing country competition expert

“It might … be good if one could have private organized forums to talk about cases that are in progress,around sectors or by case-problems. — Developing country informant

“Civil society organisations in developing countries have started to develop their interest on competitionpolicy issues, and therefore - there should be some assistance/grant that is developed specifically for CSOs.Given IDRC's strength on research, it would make a lot of difference - if such skills (of research in IDRC) canbe relayed to local CSOs in a reader friendly manner for them to champion work on competition issues.”



7. We identified some positive outcomes — changes in the behaviour, relationships, actions,activities, policies or practices — influenced by the IDRC Forums including some instances ofinfluencing domestic thinking and approaches.

8. There is a particular appreciation of the IDRC Forum’s informal nature (akin to that of the ICN),and this format of exchanges of views is particularly amenable to frank discussion.

9. The IDRC Forum modality of “soft advocacy” — learning from informally exchanging views onwhat works and thus building a critical mass of developing country perspectives on competitionpolicy —may be more appropriate to real engagement by developing countries who cannotdevote the time, staff or resources to contributing to formal fora [such as UNCTAD and theOECD].

10. In terms of what IDRC can contribute to ‘levelling the playing field’ in competition policy, theIDRC forums are ranked highly among all informants, along with research grants, which areespecially appreciated by developing country informants.

11. Some informants favour more discussions of developing country issues relevant to particularregions, of regional initiatives, or IDRC Forum meetings held jointly between the IDRC forumsand regional centres.

12. There were many reported benefits and even some outcomes, despite the IDRC not running theForums as a formal ‘project’, with an intentional focus on such gains, or behaviour change inparticular. In our view, and those of some informants, more outcomes could be generated bycontinuing the Forums with such an intentional focus, and with regular follow-up and evaluation.

OUR RECOMMENDED POINTS FOR DISCUSSION

1. Did the ICN’s ‘good intention’ to embed developing countries concerns in its programme end upbeing implemented through the introduction of the IDRC Forums during ‘ICN week’ every year,rather than at the ICN Conference itself? How does this affect ‘ownership’, and the future of theprogrammes?

2. If more effort was made to stimulate debate within the Forums, would delegates gainconfidence in raising and arguing issues, and then be more likely to build on points that theyhave discussed at IDRC Forums and raise them over the subsequent days at the ICN Conference?Or would introduction of debate impede sharing/exchange of views?

3. If the subject matter at IDRC Forums had more of a clear link to pre-announced topics of the ICNConference, while still focussing on developing country concerns, would it have more of achance of influencing ICN discussions? That is, since interviews indicated that a more vocal andmore involved developing country cohort would be welcome, would the dialogue amongdeveloping country representatives flow more readily into the broader ICN discussion if thiswere better organised?

4. Since the business community wants the pre-ICN slot, should the IDRC continue to insist that theForums precede the ICN Conference so that developing country concerns are not left until theend of the week with even less chance of entering into the ICN Conference itself?


5. If IDRC needs to reduce its budget allocation for these Forums, could it share responsibility forthe Forums with a local co-sponsor or a regional centre? Is this feasible and would it achievemany of the objectives at lesser cost?

6. Would one approach to reducing costs be to focus IDRC Forum discussions primarily ondeveloping country concerns that are faced by authorities in the region61 where the meeting isheld - but ensuring that such issues still have broad appeal to all developing countries? Thiswould limit the need to fly in speakers from across the globe.

7. What are the IDRC’s views on what constitutes ‘sustainable ownership’? Is repeat and growingattendance at the Forums sufficient? Or does IDRC want to see assumption of the role oforganisation/planning assumed by others?

8. Would asking attendees right after a Forum some evaluation questions serve to build on theirengagement and move to greater ownership and sustainability?

9. Should IDRC predefine objectives and strategies for achieving them in order to have a morefocused programme of Forums? The evidence from the evaluation suggests that this would bedesirable. Nonetheless, the competition policy environment is dynamic and complex with anaccompanying high degree of uncertainty. In this situation, effective multi-year programmingmay be inappropriate if not impossible. Responsiveness to the concerns of users may be a bettermetric since this can support more ongoing feedback, evaluation and increased ownership.

ANNEXES

Annex Terms of Reference, External Review – IDRC Pre-ICN Forums on Competition and Development,June 2011

Annex Evaluation Workplan, IDRC Pre-ICN Forums on Competition and Development, September 2011

Annex Competition policy experts consulted

Annex IDRC Pre-ICN Forum Survey

Annex Survey responses from 45 informants

Annex Survey responses from 27 developing country (Africa, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean)informants

Annex Survey respondents from 18 developed country (Europe, North America and Oceania)informants

Annex Bibliography

Annex IDRC-supported publications on competition policy

Annex List of Acronyms

Annex Biographies of the evaluators

61ICN Conferences are not always held in developing country regions, of course.

1 | P a g e

ANNEX 1 Terms of Reference External Review – IDRC Pre-ICN Forums on Competition and Development June 2011 Responsible Officer Adrian Di Giovanni I. Introduction & Background The International Competition Network (ICN) was formed a decade ago as the self-financed membership body for competition authorities worldwide, with the Canadian Competition Bureau (CBC) providing many of its Secretariat functions. It is the only global structure dealing with competition policy design and implementation. The ICN work program consists of standing working groups and a large Annual Conference. These activities tend to be driven by the concerns of the largest, richer country members. Competition agencies have now been set up in about half of all developing countries but they are almost without exception small, beleaguered and under-resourced. At the same time, like many other global organizations, the ICN has had to absorb an influx of new, developing country member agencies. Since 2005, the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) has provided assistance (financial, technical and logistical) to one-day Forums held immediately before the ICN Annual Conference. This support has included facilitating travel costs of participants to the Forums and the main ICN conferences. The objectives of these pre-Conference Forums have been to integrate developing countries into the ICN, for instance, by promoting debate on challenges in the application of competition policy in developing countries, and thereby complementing and enriching the Annual Conference agendas. The Forums provide an opportunity for developing country practitioners to meet one another, while helping promote greater participation of developing country competition authorities in the ICN Annual Conference. More generally, the Forums have aimed to bring together academic research and policy perspectives on competition policy design and implementation in developing country contexts and to raise interest in such issues more widely within the global competition community. In that connection, the Forums have also provided a platform to showcase related research supported by IDRC by developing-country competition bureaus on the application of competition policy in their countries. Topics of past Forums have sought to address issues of direct relevance to the current state of the field, such as consumer welfare (Istanbul, 2010; Moscow, 2007), the effects of the economic crisis (Zurich, 2009) and, most recently, network- and alliance-building for creating a culture of compliance (The Hague, 2011). The Forums have built an increasingly large and high-level audience (of more than 100 participants in recent years) of policymakers and experts from all developing and developed regions. Participants and presenters have included academics, competition law policy-makers and civil society representatives, over and above competition bureau practitioners, who are the main constituency of the ICN Annual Conferences. This year’s ICN conference brought together about 500 participants from around 90 countries.

2 | P a g e

IDRC now seeks an external evaluation to understand the progress the Forums have made in achieving the project’s objectives, as part of the broader IDRC goal of ensuring the sustainability of activities and of networks. II. Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation The purpose of this evaluation is to understand the progress the pre-Conference Forums have made in achieving their objectives since the first Forum in 2005 until now. The external review is primarily aimed at providing feedback to IDRC but possibly also to members of the competition policy community of practice, particularly pre-Conference Forum participants. The evaluation is intended to help guide future IDRC-supported work on competition law and policy issues in developing countries and more specifically, by IDRC to determine the relevance of, or alternative possibilities to, continued support for the Forums on a going-forward basis. Possible additional audience of the evaluation report would be members of the competition policy community of practice, particularly pre-Conference Forums participants interested in building-on the past experiences of the Forums (e.g. regarding the quality and pertinence of the Forums’ research agenda, and related efforts at dissemination and network-building). The evaluation will also feed into broader interest within in IDRC in generating deeper understanding about networks. This is a decision-oriented evaluation and not an audit of outputs and processes. The objectives of the evaluation are as follows: 1. To assess the progress of the pre-Conference Forums’, individually and collectively, in

meeting their objectives. In doing so, the assessment should consider explicitly the following: a. What were the pre-Conference Forums’ objectives, mapping the project’s stated

objectives (in project documentation) and any changes to them over time, as well as any unstated objectives and changes to them over time.

b. The strengths and weaknesses of the overall approach of the pre-Conference Forums. c. The achievements of the Forums to date, taking into consideration, among other

elements, (i) their relation to existing IDRC support on competition law and policy and (ii) resources (human and financial) required for organizing the Forums.

d. An analysis of demographics of participants and presenters at the Forums, disaggregated according to gender, age, level of experience, country of origin, low- versus middle-income country participation etc. of participants and presenters, as well as balance between Northern and Southern country-based presenters.

Contribution of Forums to raising profile of developing country issues

e. The extent to which the Forums have contributed to increasing the profile of and interest in developing country issues and perspectives among different audiences, particularly at (i) the ICN meetings and (ii) within the broader global competition policy community.

f. The relevance of topics and research presented at the Forums as measured in relation to objectives of the Forums, for instance, contributing to increasing the profile of and interest in developing country issues perspectives on competition policy.

3 | P a g e

g. The extent to which the Forums have showcased high quality research as measured, for instance, according to academic rigour, potential for contributing to policy, and so on. (A Sample Framework for Assessing Quality of Research is provided at Annex II, which could be adapted for the purposes of this evaluation.)

Contribution of the Forums to creating a community of practice

h. The contribution of the Forums in terms of contributing to the creation of a community of practice, or network of practitioners on competition policy in developing countries.

i. An examination of the roles (potential and actual) that such a network of practitioners can fulfill, and progress of the Forums in fulfilling such roles to date.

j. The efficacy of the Forums for achieving identified roles of the network (taking into consideration e.g. whether it was directly as part of project objectives or indirectly as an unplanned outcome).

k. Existing ownership of the Forums, and potential for increasing it, by the participants and also within broader competition policy community, especially ICN. Ownership here could be assessed, among other factors, according to the willingness and ability to organize the Forums independently of IDRC support.

l. An examination of the institutional and financial support needed to ensure the sustainability of the Forums.

Comparative Success

m. How the Forums progress in terms of (a) raising profile of developing country issues at the ICN Conference and (b) developing ownership in the pre-Conference Forums, compares to the progress of similar initiatives in other sectors (i.e. involving support for pre-conference events targeting developing country institutions), for instance, IDRC’s support of the IZA (Institute for the study of labour) conferences and one or two other similar initiatives that the evaluators identify as relevant comparators (e.g. in terms of comparable size and objectives of initiatives).

2. Building on the analysis under Objective 1, to evaluate the continued relevance of IDRC

support for the pre-Conference Forums and, in that light, identify points for discussion, facilitate or participate in the discussion and, where appropriate, provide recommendations on possible directions for continued IDRC support of the Forums. The points of discussions and possible recommendations could alternatively address the following two scenarios (or any relevant mix thereof):

a. Continued support for the pre-Conference Forums: in this scenario, the assessment

should make recommendations detailing possible options to improve and build on previous support. Possible areas of focus in this respect could include, among others:

i. As appropriate, specific improvements to the program design, for increasing profile and interest of Forum topics and developing country perspectives in the ICN meetings and, as realistic, broader competition policy community.

ii. Strategies for ensuring the eventual ownership and sustainability of the Forums (eg. by Forum participants or broader competition policy community).

4 | P a g e

iii. Suggestions for improving integration of support for the pre-Conference Forums within existing IDRC programs, for instance, highlighting complementarities with, and potential future contributions to, planned IDRC work on competition policy, global administrative law, and promoting conditions for inclusive growth.

iv. Time-frame for continued IDRC support.

b. Winding-down of support for the pre-Conference Forums: in this scenario, the assessment should make recommendations detailing options for an exit-strategy for IDRC in the immediate term, focusing on factors, as appropriate, such as:

i. Possible alternative project concepts/design to the Forums, which might achieve existing objectives in a more effective and efficient manner. Suggestions here could include possibilities for achieving existing objectives by incorporating current or similar activities, or alternative ones, into other existing or planned IDRC projects, for instance, on competition policy.

ii. Suggestions to help existing partners and participants preserve capacities developed and other gains from support to date, and to leverage those to help achieve greater ownership and sustainability of the Forum (e.g. identifying alternative funding sources or convening parties) or other efforts to raise the profile and interest of developing countries around competition policy.

iii. Sensitivity to IDRC’s existing relationships, credibility and convening power in respect to competition policy and related issues.

Primary Intended Users, Principal Intended Uses and Useable Evaluation Questions: In the light of the purpose and objectives, and of the users and uses of this evaluation, the IDRC and evaluators will agree on the specific actionable evaluation questions to be answered in the evaluation Workplan (see Section IV below). An indication of the relative level of priority and depth of evidence sought for each of the above questions is provided in Annex I. III. Methodology The design of the methodology should ensure that the evaluation process: • balances independence of the evaluation with engagement with IDRC program staff and

project partners/beneficiaries; • the evaluation should be manageable; • maintains rigour with usefulness, by ensuring that all key findings (strengths, weaknesses,

areas where improvement are needed) are documented and reported upon as they emerge during the evaluation period; and are also captured in full in the final evaluation report;

• involves access to pre-Conference Forum participants and other relevant stakeholders in order to provide inputs into the evaluation and assure their engagement and buy-in;

• is led and coordinated by an experienced individual with primary responsibility for the evaluation, in collaboration with members of the evaluation team (as applicable);

• is informed by expert-opinion and other forms of evidence, while taking into account the relatively small number of experts on issues of competition policy and its role in international development;

5 | P a g e

• generates reports prepared to a standard judged as acceptable by international evaluation quality standards on accuracy, feasibility, propriety and utility (with particular reference to IDRC Evaluation Guidelines).

The evaluators will elaborate in more detail the overall evaluation approach, in further detail in the evaluation Workplan (see Section IV below). Following production of the final report, the evaluators meet with IDRC project team to discuss the evaluation’s findings, recommendations and possible uses, including identifying possible relevance and ways of sharing the findings with Forum participants (e.g. through preparation by evaluators of small brief of findings for participants). The review should draw from project level data sources as well as external sources (documentation and interviews). These would include, among others:

• Relevant background documentation provided by IDRC; • Project documentation, including, for example, proposals to IDRC, progress reports;

relevant IDRC documents, including project documents related to comparative support by IDRC in other sectors; research papers, publications, and other key documents recommended by IDRC;

• Interviews and/or surveys with a sample of pre-Forum Conference participants (ICN members, policy researchers, practitioners, academics);

• Interviews with IDRC project officers; and • Interviews and/or surveys with a sample of non-participant relevant stakeholders and

experts (academics, ICN members from developed countries, and other relevant competition law and policy researchers and/or practitioners, etc.); IDRC can provide guidance and assistance in making contact with such stakeholders.

The evaluators can request additional documents and materials, and/or may choose to interview additional informants as they proceed with their work. The evaluators, within the limits set by budget and time frame, will determine the nature and scope of interviews necessary to complete their work successfully. IV. Deliverables and Timeline The evaluation will be undertaken by 2 evaluators, the Lead and another professional. The skills mix of the two evaluators will include significant experience in evaluation, particularly of research networks, and significant experience in competition law and policy. The evaluators will be responsible for the preparation of a Workplan for conducting the review, including division of labour among evaluators, methodology, and inputs needed from IDRC. In the light of the primary users and principal uses, the Workplan will explain how the evaluation questions will be answered. This will include an explanation of:

• Criteria and standards to ensure information and sources are both valid and credible to the users.

• How the data will be collected and from and by whom and when. • Then, how the data will be analysed and interpreted to answer the questions.

6 | P a g e

• Finally, the principal methodological challenges will be identified, cautioning about the potential weaknesses, difficulties and opportunities presented by the Evaluation Workplan design.

The evaluators will be responsible for setting-up interviews. Travel arrangement must be made through IDRC’s designated travel agency. IDRC will assist in making contact with potential interviewees as needed. IDRC will be responsible for providing relevant background materials to the evaluators, a list of suggestions of possible interviewees, as well as any additional materials requested by the evaluators. The evaluators will be responsible for the submission of all reports by the required dates as outlined below:

• A Workplan for the review; • A draft Evaluation Report; and • A Final Evaluation Report.

The final report, focusing on the objectives outlined in Section II above, will be approximately 6,000-7,500 words (plus Appendices as needed) and should follow the general guidelines for formatting evaluation reports at IDRC” herewith provided (evaluation guidelines 3).

Activity Dates Terms of reference are finalized By mid-July, 2011 Evaluators are selected By August, 2011 Evaluators are contracted By August, 2011 IDRC provides all background documentation, contacts, etc. By end-August, 2011 Evaluators submit proposed Evaluation Workplan By 15 September, 2011

By 19 September, 2011 IDRC and evaluators agree on Workplan Evaluators design and conduct data collection, analysis and interpretation

Mid-September to mid-November

Evaluators submit draft findings/report to IDRC 21 November 2011 28 November, 2011 6 December, 2011* December 2011*

Comments and possible team response on draft evaluation report provided to evaluators Evaluators meet with IDRC project team to discuss results and possible uses of evaluation (*tentative based on IDRC team and evaluator availability) Evaluators update report based on team discussion and input and submit revised final report to IDRC (*tentative depending on timing of above discussion)

V. Evaluator Qualifications The following are the qualifications expected in the evaluators on the whole: Knowledge of the field of competition law and policy research Experience in the management or evaluation of economic and/or policy research Experience in evaluation of research networks, including their gender dimensions Fluency in English and preferably knowledge of French

7 | P a g e

VI. Evaluation Budget and Payment Schedule The suggested timeline for this evaluation is 40 days and split between 2 evaluators. Payment to the Evaluation team for compensation fees will be made as follows: 10% upon submission of Evaluation Workplan agreed to by IDRC and evaluators 50% on submission of draft report to IDRC 40% upon presentation to IDRC of the Final Evaluation report

Evaluators are expected to supply IDRC with all financial statements in hard copy (including original receipts and supporting documents) of travel and communication expenses incurred.

8 | P a g e

ANNEX I The following chart is intended to help guide design of the evaluation workplan, by providing an indication of the relative priority and depth evidence sought for the various evaluation questions. Priority here indicates the relative amount of focus and time the evaluator should devote to particular questions as part of the overall evaluation. Depth of evidence similarly indicates how much effort and resources should be devoted to collecting and analysing evidence in support of the evaluation’s various findings and recommendations.

Question Priority

(Essential, important, of interest)

Depth of Evidence/ Certainty

(High, Medium, Light) a. The pre-Conference Forums’ objectives, mapping any changes during the project. Essential High b. The strengths and weaknesses of the overall approach of the Forums. Essential High c. Achievements of the Forums to date, taking into consideration, among other elements,

(i) their relation to existing IDRC support on competition law and policy and (ii) resources (human and financial) needed to organize the Forums.

Essential High

d. Analysis of demographics of participants and presenters at the Forums, disaggregated according to gender, age, level of experience, country of origin and so on.

Essential Medium

e. Extent to which the Forums have contributed to increasing the profile of and interest in developing country issues and perspectives among different audiences, particularly at (i) the ICN meetings and (ii) within the broader global competition policy community.

Essential High

f. Relevance of the topics and research presented at the Forums as measured in relation to objectives of the Forums, for instance, in contributing to increasing the profile of and interest in developing country issues and perspectives on competition policy.

Essential High

g. The quality of the research presented at the Forums Of Interest Medium h. The contribution of the Forums in terms of contributing to the creation of a network of

practitioners on competition policy in developing countries. Important Medium-High

i. An examination of the roles (potential and actual) that such a network can fulfill, and progress of the Forums in fulfilling such roles to date.

Important Medium

j. Forums’ efficacy among other means for achieving identified roles of the network. Important Medium k. Existing ownership of the Forums, and potential for increasing it, by the participants

and also within broader competition policy community, especially ICN. Essential High

l. The institutional and financial support needed to ensure Forums’ sustainability. Important Medium m. How the Forums progress in terms of (a) raising profile of developing country issues at

the ICN Conference and (b) developing ownership in the pre-Conference Forums compares to the progress of similar initiatives in other sectors (i.e. involving support for pre-conference events targeting developing country institutions).

Of Interest Light-Medium

9 | P a g e

Annex II - Sample Framework for Assessing Quality of Research

Assessment of Research Merit Does the documentation convey a clearly defined research question

Does the research design have clearly articulated methodology which is consistent with generally accepted standards of rigor and credibility

Were relevant stakeholders involved in the design and implementation of the research

Does the documentation provide clarity in terms of who participated and who did not in overall research process

Were the conclusions drawn sufficiently grounded in strong evidence. Are they are objective and reliable

Was a peer review process conducted

How much did the research output add to knowledge. What was the Innovation & novelty quotient

Score: 3 high / 0 low 3= Question well framed 2= Question adequately framed 1= Question framing is poor 0= Question not well defined

Score: 3 high / 0 low 3= Methodology rigorous and credible 2= Methodology adequately articulated 1= Methodology lacks sufficient rigor 0= Methodology inadequate

Score: 3 high / 1 low 3= Full range of relevant stakeholders involved 2= Most important stakeholders involved 1= Few stakeholders involved 0= Not involved

Score: 3 high / 0 low 3= Very clear 2= Process documentation available for the most part 1= Some documentation of participants in research process 0= Not clear

Score: 3 high / 0 low 3= Evidence resulting from the project well articulated 2= Sufficient 1= Poor 0= Connection between results and evidence not clear

Score: 3 high / 0 low 3= Comprehensive 2=Partial 1= Poor 0= Not defined

Score: 3 high / 0 low 3= Significant innovation in approach 2= Fresh approach 1= Largely derivative 0= Does not add new knowledge

Assessment of Research Significance Is there documentation of the grounding of the research within relevant ideas in existing literature and conceptual/ theoretical frameworks

Does the research provide direction for theory-building or policy/practice

Was there record of use by relevant groups in framing of policy

Score: 3 high / 0 low 3= Excellent 2= Good 1= Average 0= Poor

Score: 3 high / 0 low 3= Excellent 2= Good 1= Average 0= Poor

Score: 3 high / 0 low 3= Intensive use 2= Some use 1= No use 0= No use noted

1 | P a g e

ANNEX 2

Evaluation Workplan

IDRC Pre-ICN Forums on Competition and Development

September 2011

1. Primary Intended Users and Principal Intended Uses There are two primary intended users of the Pre-ICN Meeting Evaluation. One is the IDRC Social and Economic Policy (SEP) staff who are responsible for decisions about future IDRC-supported work on competition law and policy issues in developing countries and more specifically, for determining the relevance of, or alternative possibilities to, continued support for these pre-Conference Forums. The second primary intended users are IDRC staff seeking a deeper understanding about networks. In addition, while the external review is primarily aimed at providing feedback to IDRC, the audience for the evaluation findings possibly will be members of the competition policy community of practice, particularly pre-Conference Forum participants interested in building-on the past experiences of the Forums (e.g. regarding the quality and pertinence of the Forums’ research agenda, and related efforts at dissemination and network-building). The first principal intended use of the evaluation is to enable IDRC SEP staff to decide in November 2011 on continued funding (or not) of the pre-Conference Forums based on the progress they have made in achieving their objectives since the first Forum in 2005.The second use is to enable IDRC staff to enhance their understanding of IDRC’s support to networking initiatives.

2. Evaluation Questions As explained in the terms of reference, this evaluation focuses on results that will inform IDRC decision-making: “This is a decision-oriented evaluation and not an audit of outputs and processes.” Therefore, the focus is on outcomes and the two following evaluation questions address them from different angles.

2 | P a g e

3. Evaluation Questions 1. To what extent do the outcomesi of the six pre-ICN Forums represent progress towards achieving the Forums’ objectives.ii

2. What is the potential of continued IDRC funding/support for the Pre-ICN Forums to enhance the achievement of the Forums’ objectives in

the coming years?

4. Methodology

i) Criteria and standards of the data The general criteria will be the quality (but not the quantity because we will only have representative outcomes) of the changes in the behaviour, relationships or actions of the participants in the Forums that correspond to one or more of the objectives. The overall standard for the outcomes will be that they are SMART1, with clear information (see below) in terms of examples of activities that were begun, adjusted or ended due to lessons learned at the forums.

1 . Here is a first draft of the proposed standards as they would be communicated to informants:

- Specific: Please formulate the outcome in sufficient detail so that someone without specialised subject or contextual knowledge will be able to understand and appreciate what changed in your behaviour, your relationships with others or in your activities or actions. What exactly did you do differently? You changed but what precisely changed, when and where?

- Measurable: The description of the outcome must provide us with objective, verifiable quantitative and qualitative information. So please specify how much and how many when describing the change? When and where did the change happen? For example, if numbers of people are involved, say how many. If you are uncertain, estimate. 5-10, 50-100, 500, 1,000.

- Achieved: When you describe how the Pre-ICN Forum contributed to the change you experienced, please keep in mind that we are seeking to establish a plausible relationship, a logical link between the outcome and what how the Pre-ICN Forum contributed to it. What happened in the Pre-ICN Forum that influenced the change in you? Who did what that wholly but probably only partially, indirectly or indirectly, intentionally or unexpectedly, which contributed to that change in you?

- Relevant: We are looking for changes that represent a significant step towards the integration of developing country concerns into the worldwide discussion of the challenges to competition policy (i.e. competition law design and implementation).

- Timely: Please remember we are looking for an outcome that occurred since 2006 and following the Pre-ICN Forum(s) that contributed to it. The Forum(s) may have been months or even years before you experienced the changed, however.

3 | P a g e

These are the criteria and standards objective by objective:

Pre-ICN Forum objectives 2006-20112 Criteria and standards for measuring progress towards the objectives – What indicators or evidence will be considered valid

and credible?

General objective: Enable integration of developing country concerns into global discussions that occur at ICN conferences regarding the challenges to competition policy (i.e. competition law design and implementation). [Source: Susan Joekes, email 10.09.11]

Criteria:

1. Outcomes identified by attendees of an ICN annual conference and from an expert group of individuals or organisations, including themselves, who as a result of a Pre-ICN Forum change their behaviour, relationships or actions in ways that represent a step towards the integration of developing country concerns into the ICN annual conferences.

N.B. That is, “worldwide discussion” is understood to be discussion in the ICN annual conference.

Standards: Verifiable outcomes.

2 These objectives were formulated in the first instance in IDRC’s Terms of Reference, then prioritized by Katherine Hay and finally specified by Susan Joekes.

4 | P a g e


and credible?

Precise objectives:

1. Promote lively policy dialogue within the relevant policy community including some of its key, high level actors [Source: IDRC 2007-2010 –Extracted from file “PAD 104181 (2007 to 2010 pre ICN Forums)”]

Criteria

1. Outcomes identified by attendees of an ICN annual conference and from an expert group of individuals or organisations, including themselves, who as a result of a Pre-ICN Forum change their behaviour, relationships or actions in ways that contribute to critical but productive debates that engage significant numbers of participants (i.e., “lively policy dialogue”) in an ICN annual conference.

2. Attendees of an ICN annual conference and from an expert group of individuals or organisations report that there was “lively policy dialogue” as a result of one or more Pre-ICN Forums

3. Evidence in the Forum programmes or reports of “lively policy dialogue” at a Pre-ICN Forum.

Standards: N.B.: “Lively policy dialogue” will be defined as above - as including productive exchanges of views even if critical. Outcomes are inherently subjective to the respondents and maps directly against their view that their developing concerns were addressed, or not, through such an exchange. Analysis will be also be made of the substantive content of the meetings as revealed through agendas and reports. .

2. Demonstrate the value of bringing in research based evidence into policy discussions, for example by drawing attention to policy-relevant empirical findings that can be used in debates at home. [Source: Capetown, 2 May 2006 – Extracted from the file “Cape Town_ Workshop Announcement-May 2006-Cape Town0001”]

Criteria

1. Outcomes identified by attendees of an ICN annual conference and from an expert group of individuals or organisations, including themselves, who as a result of a Pre-ICN Forum bring research-based evidence into policy discussions in the ICN annual conference.

N.B.: That is, introducing this into the Pre-ICN Forums is understood

5 | P a g e


and credible?

to be an activity or output on the Forum.

2. An activity or output of policy discussion involving research based evidence in the Pre-ICN Forums that attendees of the ICN annual conference and from an expert group of individuals or organisations report contributed to an outcome.

N.B.: If it does not contribute to an outcome, it would simply be a Pre-ICN Forum activity or output and not assessed in this evaluation.)

Standards: Verifiable outcomes

3. Give a platform for dissemination of current and completed IDRC-supported research investigations. [Source: IDRC 2011 – Extracted from three files “PAD 105649 (2011 pre ICN Forum)”, “105649 PAD - March 1 draft”, and “PAD 105649, March 2011”]

Criteria:

1. Attendees of an ICN annual conference or members of the expert group of individuals or organisations cite IDRC-supported research investigations presented in a Pre-ICN Forum that was ‘taken home’ back to the developing country and resulted in something different happening – it need not be major, it may just be something anecdotal that altered behaviour.

N.B.: If it does not contribute to an outcome, it would simply be a Pre-ICN Forum activity or output and not assessed in this evaluation.

Standards: verifiable outcomes

4. Contribute in an ICN annual conference to the refinement and greater effectiveness of competition policy interventions consistent with developmental goals. [Source: IDRC 2007-2010 –Extracted from file “PAD 104181 (2007 to 2010 pre ICN Forums)”] with particular reference to:

Criteria:

1. Attendees of an ICN annual conference or members of the expert group of individuals or organisations register outcomes in an ICN annual conference that represent a refinement and greater effectiveness of competition policy interventions consistent with

6 | P a g e


and credible?

i) the distributive role of competition by way of the impact of competition policy measures on consumers;

developmental goals.

Standards: verifiable outcomes

ii) the adequacy of competition institutions to scrutinise and modify state aids and other crisis-related measures imposed by governments in times of economic shocks and

iii) the types of alliance building required to enhance enforcement and advocate effectively for competition principles [Source: Capetown, 2 May 2006 – Extracted from the file “Cape Town_ Workshop Announcement-May 2006-Cape Town0001”]

5. Support the preparation and worldwide dissemination of some new research papers. [Source: IDRC 2007-2010 –Extracted from file “PAD 104181 (2007 to 2010 pre ICN Forums)”]

Criteria:

1. Outcomes identified by attendees of an ICN annual conference and from an expert group of individuals or organisations, including themselves, who as a result of a Pre-ICN Forum involve the presentation of new research papers, or the presentation of research for the first time at an Pre-ICN Forum.

(That is, for the purposes of this evaluation, “worldwide dissemination” is understood to be presentation in a ICN annual conference.)

Standards: Verifiable outcomes.

6. Develop ownership of the Pre-ICN Forums

Criteria:

1. Attendees of an ICN annual conference and members of an expert group of individuals or organisations report outcomes that represent action taken to complement IDRC’s efforts to keep the Forums going

7 | P a g e


and credible?

even in the eventual absence of IDRC.

N.B. In addition to seeking outcomes, we could ask a reasoned opinion. For example: “If IDRC ends its support for the Pre-ICN forums, would you be willing to contribute to the forums continuation? If yes, how?” This would be an opinion that we would obtain through a survey

Standards: Verifiable outcomes

7. Enhance developing country practitioners’ ability to network among each other and with staff of established authorities on the margins of the ICN.iii [Source: Susan Joekes, email 10.09.11]

Criteria:

1. Attendees of an ICN annual conference and members of an expert group of individuals or organisations report outcomes that involve networking among each other or with staff of established authorities on the margins of the ICN, networking that was fostered by a Pre-ICN Forum.

Standards: Outcome harvesting supplementing anecdotal evidence by delegates that some of this occurred is a valid / sufficient standard.

ii) Information required

- Succinct (1-2 sentences) SMART outcomes.

- For each outcome, succinct (1-2 sentences) descriptions of how a Pre-ICN Forum contributed to it, however partial indirect and unintended the contribution may have been.

- Subjective, anecdotal evidence (i.e., opinions)

8 | P a g e

iii) Sources of information

- Attendees of an ICN annual conference who respond to an invitation sent to all attendees since 2006 from the ad hoc ICN Secretariat to participate confidentially in the evaluation.

- Members of an expert group of individuals or organisations. These 15-20 informants will be individuals that IDRC and the consultants agree can provide unbiased informed views, and some who may have biased views but we account for that through a qualification, and have some of them be participants, some speakers, some non-attendees.

iv) Data collection

- Survey for attendees in Pre-ICN Forums in 2006-2011

- Email questionnaire for the expert group on outcomes

- Engagement through email with attendees and experts who identify outcomes to agree on final formulations.

- Interviews by Skype, phone or in person (in Bruges perhaps) with a small group of attendees and experts to deepen understanding of salient aspects of their responses.

v) Data organisation

- The survey and questionnaire responses will be classified according to the Pre-ICN Forum objectives and depending on the quantity of information, put into a simple Excel or Access data base.

vi) Interpreting the data to answer the two evaluation questions

Philip Marsden will take the lead in answering the two evaluation questions. Ricardo Wilson-Grau will serve as an interlocutor válido to help identify weaknesses and enhance strengths of content or form.

9 | P a g e

vii) Synthesis

Ricardo Wilson-Grau will draft conclusions to be reviewed by Philip Marsden and jointly agreed.

viii) Presentation of results and discussion/reflection with IDRC officers The consultants will recommend to IDRC points for discussion about the findings focusing on two scenarios:

a) Winding-down of support for the pre-Conference Forums b) Continued support for the pre-Conference Forums

They will then facilitate a one-day discussion amongst IDRC staff in Ottawa on the two scenarios, enriched by additional discussion points proposed by IDRC.

5. Division of roles and responsibilities

Activity Dates Person(s) responsible Estimated days

required Philip Ricardo

Evaluation plan approved By 20 September Adrian, Katherine, Susan, Philip and Ricardo 2.5 2.5

List of Attendees of Pre-ICN Forums By 1 October Ricardo 1 List of Group of Experts By 1 October Adrian, Susan and Philip 0.5 0

Survey design By 1 October Philip in consultation with Ricardo 3 2

Administration of survey (through Survey Monkey) and of questionnaires to experts

1-31 October Ricardo 0 1

Processing of surveys and questionnaires into a data base 7 November Ricardo 3

Review of survey and questionnaire responses 7 October-7 November Philip and Ricardo 5 2

Interviews with selected attendees and experts 10 October-10 November Philip 3 0

Draft report, including a face-to-face meeting of evaluators 15 November 2011 Philip and Ricardo 5 5

Evaluators submit draft findings/report to IDRC 21 November 2011 Philip and Ricardo 4 0

Comments and possible team response on draft evaluation report 28 November, 2011 Adrian, Katherine, Susan 0

10 | P a g e

Activity Dates Person(s) responsible Estimated days required

provided to evaluators Evaluators meet with IDRC project team to discuss results and possible uses of evaluation (*tentative based on IDRC team and evaluator availability)

6 December, 2011* Philip and Ricardo 3 3

Evaluators update report based on team discussion and input and submit revised final report to IDRC (*tentative depending on timing of above discussion)

30 December 2011* Philip and Ricardo 2 2

6. Endnotes

i We suggest we use the concept of “outcome” as defined in IDRC’s Outcome Mapping methodology: significant changes in social actors. Specifically in this evaluation, we would ask participants to describe in one or two sentences any changes in their behaviour, relationships or actions that they consider were a result of their participation in a forum. For example, “As a developing country practitioner, I made a presentation the following year in the ICN annual conference on a topic I had never dared to present before.” In addition, we would ask him to describe in another one or two sentences what was the forum’s contribution to that change, directly or indirectly, in a small or large way, intentionally or not. For instance: “At last year’s Pre-ICN forum I met an amazing expert who encouraged, and subsequently advised me on making my novel presentation.” ii This is a first angle on the significance of the results (outcomes) that the Pre-ICN Forums are generating. Assuming that there are predefined objectives for each Forum, preferably explicit but at least implicit, we would classify outcomes as they correspond to each objective and then answer the question. For example, for 2006 I find these objectives in the files they have sent:

(1) Foster greater understanding of the potential contributions of competition law and policy to development,

(2) Draw attention to policy-relevant empirical findings that can be used in debates at home, and

(3) Promote dialogue and mutual understanding of the circumstances facing developing countries across experts and across countries, including those at very different levels of development.

In March 2011, IDRC identifies these objectives for all the Pre-ICN Forums:

(1) Integrate developing countries into the ICN.

(2) Complement and enrich the Conference Agenda by promoting debate on the challenges in the application of competition policy in developing countries and thereby.

(3) Give developing country competition authorities a larger presence in the ICN Annual Conference.

(4) Sustain and raise the profile of the 'developing country caucus' among the ICN membership

11 | P a g e

(5) Deepen understanding of the challenge of establishing sound competition regimes in developing countries

(6) Demonstrate the value of bringing in research based evidence into policy discussions.

(7) Give a platform for current and completed IDRC-supported research investigations.

(8) Maintain IDRC's profile as the convenor of the "developing countries" caucus within the ICN. iii The ICN Conference is English language only, whereas in line with Canadian official policy IDRC provides French-English (and local languages on occasion, e.g. Russian, Turkish) interpretation for each Forum, addressing (only in part of course) a powerful geographically exclusionary constraint on developing country participation in the ICN.

ANNEX 3

Competition policy experts consulted (only 27 answered the survey)

1. Allan Fels - former chairman of Australian competition authority; currently dean of Australia and New Zealand School of Government

2. Andres Rius – formerly IDRC GGP program leader

3. Barbara Lee – former Executive Director, Jamaican Fair Trading Commission and CARICOM competition commission

4. David Lewis – former chair, South African Competition Tribunal

5. Eduardo Perez Motta – president of Mexican competition authority, also chair of new Latin American competition network

6. Eleanor Fox – Professor, NYU School of Law

7. Elizabeth Farina – Full Professor at the Department of Economics, University of Sao Paulo

8. Elizabeth Kraus - Deputy Director for International Antitrust at Federal Trade Commission, USA

9. Frederic Jenny – Judge, Cour du Cassation; ESSEC Business School, Paris; chairman OECD committees

10. George Lipimile – COMESA; former Executive Director of the Zambia Competition Commission

11. Hilary Jennings – head of Outreach, OECD

12. John D Holmes - Principal Economist, Which?, UK

13. Joseph Wilson – Member, Competition Commission, Pakistan

14. Kunal Sen - Institute for Development Policy and Management (IDPM), School of Environment and Development, University of Manchester

15. Michal Gal – professor of law, Haifa University

16. Mona Yassine – former chair, Egyptian Competition Authority

17. Mor Bakhoum - Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law, Germany

18. Nigel Caesar – Competition Law Officer, Canadian Competition Bureau

19. Pamela Sittenfeld – former Executive Director, Costa Rica competition authority; member, Weinstok Abogados

20. Paolo Franco Benedetti – General Director for Institutional Affairs, Mexican competition authority

21. Paul Phumpiu - President of the Antitrust Commission, (INDECOPI), and Operations Officer Institute for Liberty and Democracy, (ILD) Peru

22. Peter D'Souza, DFID, UK

23. Phil Evans, member Competition Commission, UK

24. Pradeep Mehta – Secretary General , CUTS, India

25. Randy Tritell - Director, Office of International Affairs at Federal Trade Commission

26. Russell Damtoft - Associate Director, Federal Trade Commission's Office of International Affairs

27. Shan Ramburuth – president , South Africa Competition Commission

28. Simon Roberts – Chief Economist, South Africa Competition Authority

29. Thulasoni Kaira, CEO at Competition Authority of Botswana

IDRC has commissioned an evaluation of its support for the PreInternational Competition Network Forums, in order to assess the progress of the Forums in meeting their objectives. We need your opinion in order to complete this exercise. This questionnaire is designed to obtain your views about the Forums. There may be questions for which you do not have answers. That is not problem. Simply go to the next one. We guarantee that your answers will be confidential. IDRC will only receive aggregated information. Based on the piloting of this survey, we estimate that it will take you no more than 15 minutes to answer all the questions. Nonetheless, if necessary you can exit the survey and return to finish. In this case, make sure you click forward to the next page before exiting so that your responses through the previous page will be saved. ("Cookies" must be enabled on your internet browser.) You can return to finish or correct your answers at any time by using the same link but only from the same computer. If you have any questions, please communicate with Ricardo.Wilson[email protected]. And please, we need your reply as soon as possible. Philip Marsden and Ricardo WilsonGrau Independent evaluators

1. Respondent's identity (Classification by Philip Marsden)

Instructions

Expert

nmlkj

Attendee

nmlkj

2. Please indicate your general affiliation:

3. In which IDRC Forums have you participated and in what capacity? Please tick twice: as a speaker or as a delegate, and subsidised or not by IDRC.

General information

IDRC Forum, as a speaker

IDRC Forum, as a delegate

IDRC Forum, subsidised by IDRC

IDRC Forum, not subsidised by IDRC

Only attended the ICN Annual Conference

2006 (South Africa) gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

2007 (Moscow) gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

2008 (Kyoto) gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

2009 (Zurich) gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

2010 (Istanbul) gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

2011 (The Hague) gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc gfedc

4. What were your motivations in attending the IDRC Forum: High Moderate Slight Not at all

The topics presented at the PreICN Forum nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

The chance to network at the PreICN Forum nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Participate in the PreICN Forum nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

A means to attend the main ICN conference nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

Competition agency

gfedc

Law firm

gfedc

Economics consultancy

gfedc

Academic institution

gfedc

Other (please specify)


Here we want to know your opinion about the results of the IDRC Forums.

5. For the Forum(s) that you attended, what is your opinion about these different aspects? To what extent did the IDRC Forum(s) contribute to these results? (Please tick all that apply.)

6. How much have you benefitted as a result of participating in an IDRC Forum? How and how significantly have you changed? (Tick all that apply.)

Results of the IDRC PreICN Forums

Great extentModerate extent

Some extent No extentNo basis to judge or not

sure

5.1 Helped to integrate developing countries concerns into the ICN annual conferences.

nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

5.2 Promoted debate on the challenges in the application of competition policy in developing countries at an ICN Annual Conference.


5.3 Gave developing country competition authorities a more prominent role in the ICN Annual Conference.


5.4 Sustained and raised the profile of the 'developing country caucus' among the ICN membership.


5.5 Deepened understanding of the challenge of establishing sound competition regimes in developing countries.


5.6 Brought researchbased evidence into policy discussions in an ICN Annual Conference.


5.7 Applied research or other learning in debates in a developing country.


5.8 Enhanced developing country practitioners’ ability to network with each other and with staff of wellestablished competition authorities.


5.9 Facilitated the presentation of new research papers, or the presentation of research for the first time at an IDRC Forum.


5.10 Supported dialogue or presentation of papers from IDRC Forums that influenced ICN work products.


5.11 Enabled participants to engage in critical and productive debates at an ICN Annual Conference (including on its margins).


Very significantly

Significantly Moderately Slightly Not at all

6.1 Built your capacity in competition policy nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

6.2 Facilitated your dissemination of new evidence about implementing sound competition regimes in developing countries


6.3 Enabled you to influence competition policy in a developing country


6.4 Enhanced your networking nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

5.12 Other results or comments?

6.5 Other (please specify)

7. Can you briefly describe, in 12 sentences, concrete instances of an individual or organisation, including yourself, changing their behaviour, relationships, actions or activities as a result of an IDRC Forum? Please indicate who changed, when and where, and what did they do differently than before the IDRC Forum.

55

66

In these last few questions we wish to explore your opinion about what would happen if IDRC were to end its subsidy of the IDRC PreICN Forums.

9. If IDRC was unable to continue the preICN Forum meetings due to funding or other constraints, would you be willing to contribute to the continuation of such discussions and research?

10. If comparable fora already exist where discussions on developing country issues in relation to competition policy could continue at the same level as at the IDRC preICN Forums, please identify them.

11. Do you have other comments you wish to make on the past or future of the IDRC PreICN Forums?

The future of IDRC PreICN Forums

8. Among the principal possibilities that IDRC could fund in competition policy related work how would you assess the PRE ICN forum?

Not importantRelatively unimportant

Moderately important

Highly important No opinion

8.1 PreICN Forums nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

8.2 Travel grants nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

8.3 Speaker grants nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

8.4 Research grants nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

8.5 Publication grants nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj nmlkj

International

Regional

National

Other

55

66

Yes, by providing organizational support

gfedc

Yes, by giving financial support

gfedc

Yes, by offering expertise

gfedc

No

gfedc

IDRC requests answers to the following three questions. Answering is of course optional but if you do share this information, it will always be kept confidential.

12. Which part of the world are you from?

13. Are you male or female?

14. How much professional experience do you have working with competition policy?

15. That is it. Many thanks!

If we have questions about your answers, we will want to contact you. If you are willing for us to communicate with you, please give us contact information. We will of course keep your name and address as confidential as your responses. Philip Marsden and Ricardo WilsonGrau

Diversity information

Name:

Country:

Email Address:

Phone Number:

Africa

nmlkj

Asia

nmlkj

Europe

nmlkj

Latin America

nmlkj

North America

nmlkj

Oceania

nmlkj

Male

nmlkj

Female

nmlkj

Less than 5 years

nmlkj

610 years

nmlkj

1115 years

nmlkj

More than 16 years

nmlkj

1 of 8

IDRC Forum Evaluation


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Expert 60.0% 27

Attendee 40.0% 18

answered question 45

skipped question 0


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Competition agency 58.8% 20

Law firm 8.8% 3

Economics consultancy 0.0% 0

Academic institution 35.3% 12


9


skipped question 11

2 of 8

3. In which IDRC Forums have you participated and in what capacity? Please tick twice:

as a speaker or as a delegate, and subsidised or not by IDRC.

IDRC

Forum,

as a

speaker

IDRC

Forum,

as a

delegate

IDRC

Forum,

subsidised

by IDRC

IDRC

Forum,

not

subsidised

by IDRC

Only

attended

the ICN

Annual

Conference

Response

Count

2006 (South Africa) 46.2% (6) 30.8% (4) 0.0% (0) 23.1% (3) 23.1% (3) 13

2007 (Moscow) 37.5% (6) 43.8% (7) 6.3% (1) 25.0% (4) 12.5% (2) 16

2008 (Kyoto) 29.4% (5) 29.4% (5) 5.9% (1) 11.8% (2) 29.4% (5) 17

2009 (Zurich) 32.0% (8) 36.0% (9) 12.0% (3) 20.0% (5) 20.0% (5) 25

2010 (Istanbul) 31.8% (7) 40.9% (9) 27.3% (6) 13.6% (3) 22.7% (5) 22

2011 (The Hague)35.5%

(11)

35.5%

(11)19.4% (6) 19.4% (6) 32.3% (10) 31


skipped question 0

4. What were your motivations in attending the IDRC Forum:

High Moderate Slight Not at allResponse

Count

The topics presented at the Pre-

ICN Forum67.6% (23) 29.4% (10) 2.9% (1) 0.0% (0) 34

The chance to network at the Pre-

ICN Forum54.8% (17) 32.3% (10) 12.9% (4) 0.0% (0) 31

Participate in the Pre-ICN Forum 50.0% (17) 44.1% (15) 5.9% (2) 0.0% (0) 34

A means to attend the main ICN

conference21.9% (7) 15.6% (5) 9.4% (3) 53.1% (17) 32


5


skipped question 6

3 of 8

5. For the Forum(s) that you attended, what is your opinion about these different

aspects? To what extent did the IDRC Forum(s) contribute to these results? (Please tick

all that apply.)

Great

extent

Moderate

extent

Some

extentNo extent

No basis

to judge

or not

sure

Response

Count

5.1 Helped to integrate developing

countries concerns into the ICN

annual conferences.

29.3% (12) 39.0% (16) 17.1% (7) 2.4% (1) 12.2% (5) 41

5.2 Promoted debate on the

challenges in the application of

competition policy in developing

countries at an ICN Annual

Conference.

47.6% (20) 31.0% (13) 14.3% (6) 2.4% (1) 4.8% (2) 42

5.3 Gave developing country

competition authorities a more

prominent role in the ICN Annual

Conference.

26.2% (11) 35.7% (15) 21.4% (9) 4.8% (2) 11.9% (5) 42

5.4 Sustained and raised the profile

of the 'developing country caucus'

among the ICN membership.

22.0% (9) 46.3% (19) 17.1% (7) 7.3% (3) 7.3% (3) 41

5.5 Deepened understanding of the

challenge of establishing sound

competition regimes in developing

countries.

42.9% (18) 42.9% (18) 11.9% (5) 0.0% (0) 2.4% (1) 42

5.6 Brought research-based

evidence into policy discussions in

an ICN Annual Conference.

28.6% (12) 33.3% (14) 26.2% (11) 2.4% (1) 9.5% (4) 42

5.7 Applied research or other

learning in debates in a developing

country.34.1% (14) 24.4% (10) 29.3% (12) 0.0% (0) 12.2% (5) 41

5.8 Enhanced developing country

practitioners’ ability to network with

each other and with staff of well-

established competition authorities.

40.5% (17) 35.7% (15) 11.9% (5) 2.4% (1) 9.5% (4) 42

5.9 Facilitated the presentation of

new research papers, or the

presentation of research for the

first time at an IDRC Forum.

36.6% (15) 43.9% (18) 9.8% (4) 2.4% (1) 7.3% (3) 41

5.10 Supported dialogue or

4 of 8

presentation of papers from IDRC

Forums that influenced ICN work

products.

12.2% (5) 43.9% (18) 17.1% (7) 2.4% (1) 24.4% (10) 41

5.11 Enabled participants to engage

in critical and productive debates at

an ICN Annual Conference

(including on its margins).

33.3% (14) 31.0% (13) 23.8% (10) 0.0% (0) 11.9% (5) 42


4


skipped question 3

6. How much have you benefitted as a result of participating in an IDRC Forum? How and

how significantly have you changed? (Tick all that apply.)

Very

significantlySignificantly Moderately Slightly Not at all

Response

Count

6.1 Built your capacity in

competition policy23.1% (9) 38.5% (15) 20.5% (8)

15.4%

(6)2.6% (1) 39

6.2 Facilitated your dissemination

of new evidence about

implementing sound competition

regimes in developing countries

17.9% (7) 41.0% (16) 23.1% (9)10.3%

(4)7.7% (3) 39

6.3 Enabled you to influence

competition policy in a developing

country

10.5% (4) 31.6% (12) 31.6% (12)15.8%

(6)10.5% (4) 38

6.4 Enhanced your networking 33.3% (13) 38.5% (15) 17.9% (7)10.3%

(4)0.0% (0) 39


3


skipped question 4

5 of 8

7. Can you briefly describe, in 1-2 sentences, concrete instances of an individual or

organisation, including yourself, changing their behaviour, relationships, actions or

activities as a result of an IDRC Forum? Please indicate who changed, when and where,

and what did they do differently than before the IDRC Forum.

Response

Count

21


skipped question 24

8. Among the principal possibilities that IDRC could fund in competition policy related

work how would you assess the PRE ICN forum?

Not

important

Relatively

unimportant

Moderately

important

Highly

important

No

opinion

Response

Count

8.1 Pre-ICN Forums 2.4% (1) 4.9% (2) 19.5% (8)68.3%

(28)4.9% (2) 41

8.2 Travel grants 0.0% (0) 7.5% (3) 32.5% (13)45.0%

(18)15.0% (6) 40

8.3 Speaker grants 0.0% (0) 7.5% (3) 37.5% (15)37.5%

(15)17.5% (7) 40

8.4 Research grants 0.0% (0) 2.5% (1) 22.5% (9)62.5%

(25)12.5% (5) 40

8.5 Publication grants 0.0% (0) 7.5% (3) 30.0% (12)45.0%

(18)17.5% (7) 40


skipped question 4

6 of 8

9. If IDRC was unable to continue the pre-ICN Forum meetings due to funding or other

constraints, would you be willing to contribute to the continuation of such discussions

and research?

Response

Percent

Response

Count

Yes, by providing organizational

support30.0% 12

Yes, by giving financial support 7.5% 3

Yes, by offering expertise 85.0% 34

No 7.5% 3


skipped question 5

10. If comparable fora already exist where discussions on developing country issues in

relation to competition policy could continue at the same level as at the IDRC pre-ICN

Forums, please identify them.

Response

Percent

Response

Count

International

85.0% 17

Regional

45.0% 9

National

35.0% 7

Other

5.0% 1


skipped question 25

7 of 8

11. Do you have other comments you wish to make on the past or future of the IDRC Pre-

ICN Forums?

Response

Count

23


skipped question 22


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Africa 24.4% 11

Asia 13.3% 6

Europe 20.0% 9

Latin America 22.2% 10

North America 15.6% 7

Oceania 4.4% 2


skipped question 0


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Male 72.7% 32

Female 27.3% 12


skipped question 1

8 of 8


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Less than 5 years 9.1% 4

6-10 years 31.8% 14

11-15 years 25.0% 11

More than 16 years 34.1% 15


skipped question 1

1 of 8



Response

Percent

Response

Count

Expert 63.0% 17

Attendee 37.0% 10


skipped question 0


Response

Percent

Response

Count


Law firm 4.3% 1




4


skipped question 4

2 of 8



IDRC

Forum,

as a

speaker

IDRC

Forum,

as a

delegate

IDRC

Forum,

subsidised

by IDRC

IDRC

Forum,

not

subsidised

by IDRC

Only

attended

the ICN

Annual

Conference

Response

Count

2006 (South Africa) 57.1% (4) 42.9% (3) 0.0% (0) 14.3% (1) 14.3% (1) 7

2007 (Moscow) 57.1% (4) 57.1% (4) 14.3% (1) 14.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 7

2008 (Kyoto) 44.4% (4) 44.4% (4) 11.1% (1) 11.1% (1) 0.0% (0) 9

2009 (Zurich) 58.3% (7) 33.3% (4) 16.7% (2) 8.3% (1) 8.3% (1) 12

2010 (Istanbul) 41.7% (5) 41.7% (5) 41.7% (5) 8.3% (1) 16.7% (2) 12

2011 (The Hague) 35.3% (6) 47.1% (8) 29.4% (5) 23.5% (4) 23.5% (4) 17


skipped question 0



Count


ICN Forum80.0% (16) 20.0% (4) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 20


ICN Forum52.9% (9) 35.3% (6) 11.8% (2) 0.0% (0) 17



conference26.3% (5) 21.1% (4) 15.8% (3) 36.8% (7) 19


3


skipped question 2

3 of 8



all that apply.)

Great

extent

Moderate

extent

Some

extentNo extent

No basis

to judge

or not

sure

Response

Count



annual conferences.

32.0% (8) 48.0% (12) 8.0% (2) 0.0% (0) 12.0% (3) 25





Conference.

53.8% (14) 26.9% (7) 15.4% (4) 0.0% (0) 3.8% (1) 26




Conference.

23.1% (6) 30.8% (8) 30.8% (8) 3.8% (1) 11.5% (3) 26




19.2% (5) 46.2% (12) 19.2% (5) 7.7% (2) 7.7% (2) 26




countries.

38.5% (10) 46.2% (12) 11.5% (3) 0.0% (0) 3.8% (1) 26



an ICN Annual Conference.30.8% (8) 30.8% (8) 30.8% (8) 3.8% (1) 3.8% (1) 26



country.

32.0% (8) 20.0% (5) 44.0% (11) 0.0% (0) 4.0% (1) 25





42.3% (11) 38.5% (10) 11.5% (3) 3.8% (1) 3.8% (1) 26





44.0% (11) 36.0% (9) 12.0% (3) 4.0% (1) 4.0% (1) 25


4 of 8



products.

20.0% (5) 48.0% (12) 12.0% (3) 0.0% (0) 20.0% (5) 25





42.3% (11) 23.1% (6) 26.9% (7) 0.0% (0) 7.7% (2) 26


1


skipped question 1



Very


Response

Count


competition policy37.5% (9) 41.7% (10) 12.5% (3) 8.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 24





26.1% (6) 43.5% (10) 21.7% (5) 4.3% (1) 4.3% (1) 23



country

18.2% (4) 36.4% (8) 31.8% (7) 9.1% (2) 4.5% (1) 22

6.4 Enhanced your networking 43.5% (10) 34.8% (8) 17.4% (4) 4.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 23


1


skipped question 2

5 of 8





Response

Count

15


skipped question 12



Not

important

Relatively

unimportant

Moderately

important

Highly

important

No

opinion

Response

Count

8.1 Pre-ICN Forums 3.8% (1) 7.7% (2) 15.4% (4)69.2%

(18)3.8% (1) 26

8.2 Travel grants 0.0% (0) 12.0% (3) 28.0% (7)48.0%

(12)12.0% (3) 25

8.3 Speaker grants 0.0% (0) 12.0% (3) 32.0% (8)40.0%

(10)16.0% (4) 25

8.4 Research grants 0.0% (0) 4.0% (1) 12.0% (3)76.0%

(19)8.0% (2) 25

8.5 Publication grants 0.0% (0) 4.0% (1) 32.0% (8)56.0%

(14)8.0% (2) 25


skipped question 1

6 of 8



and research?

Response

Percent

Response

Count


support33.3% 8



No 8.3% 2


skipped question 3




Response

Percent

Response

Count

International

78.6% 11

Regional

50.0% 7

National

35.7% 5

Other 0.0% 0


skipped question 13

7 of 8


ICN Forums?

Response

Count

16


skipped question 11


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Africa 40.7% 11

Asia 22.2% 6

Europe 0.0% 0



Oceania 0.0% 0


skipped question 0


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Male 69.2% 18

Female 30.8% 8


skipped question 1

8 of 8


Response

Percent

Response

Count


6-10 years 34.6% 9

11-15 years 34.6% 9



skipped question 1

1 of 8



Response

Percent

Response

Count

Expert 55.6% 10

Attendee 44.4% 8


skipped question 0


Response

Percent

Response

Count


Law firm 18.2% 2




5


skipped question 7

2 of 8



IDRC

Forum,

as a

speaker

IDRC

Forum,

as a

delegate

IDRC

Forum,

subsidised

by IDRC

IDRC

Forum,

not

subsidised

by IDRC

Only

attended

the ICN

Annual

Conference

Response

Count

2006 (South Africa) 33.3% (2) 16.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (2) 33.3% (2) 6

2007 (Moscow) 22.2% (2) 33.3% (3) 0.0% (0) 33.3% (3) 22.2% (2) 9

2008 (Kyoto) 12.5% (1) 12.5% (1) 0.0% (0) 12.5% (1) 62.5% (5) 8

2009 (Zurich) 7.7% (1) 38.5% (5) 7.7% (1) 30.8% (4) 30.8% (4) 13

2010 (Istanbul) 20.0% (2) 40.0% (4) 10.0% (1) 20.0% (2) 30.0% (3) 10

2011 (The Hague) 35.7% (5) 21.4% (3) 7.1% (1) 14.3% (2) 42.9% (6) 14


skipped question 0



Count


ICN Forum50.0% (7) 42.9% (6) 7.1% (1) 0.0% (0) 14


ICN Forum57.1% (8) 28.6% (4) 14.3% (2) 0.0% (0) 14



conference15.4% (2) 7.7% (1) 0.0% (0) 76.9% (10) 13


2


skipped question 4

3 of 8



all that apply.)

Great

extent

Moderate

extent

Some

extentNo extent

No basis

to judge

or not

sure

Response

Count



annual conferences.

25.0% (4) 25.0% (4) 31.3% (5) 6.3% (1) 12.5% (2) 16





Conference.

37.5% (6) 37.5% (6) 12.5% (2) 6.3% (1) 6.3% (1) 16




Conference.

31.3% (5) 43.8% (7) 6.3% (1) 6.3% (1) 12.5% (2) 16




26.7% (4) 46.7% (7) 13.3% (2) 6.7% (1) 6.7% (1) 15




countries.

50.0% (8) 37.5% (6) 12.5% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 16



an ICN Annual Conference.

25.0% (4) 37.5% (6) 18.8% (3) 0.0% (0) 18.8% (3) 16



country.37.5% (6) 31.3% (5) 6.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 25.0% (4) 16





37.5% (6) 31.3% (5) 12.5% (2) 0.0% (0) 18.8% (3) 16





25.0% (4) 56.3% (9) 6.3% (1) 0.0% (0) 12.5% (2) 16


4 of 8



products.

0.0% (0) 37.5% (6) 25.0% (4) 6.3% (1) 31.3% (5) 16





18.8% (3) 43.8% (7) 18.8% (3) 0.0% (0) 18.8% (3) 16


3


skipped question 2



Very


Response

Count


competition policy0.0% (0) 33.3% (5) 33.3% (5)

26.7%

(4)6.7% (1) 15





6.3% (1) 37.5% (6) 25.0% (4)18.8%

(3)12.5% (2) 16



country

0.0% (0) 25.0% (4) 31.3% (5)25.0%

(4)18.8% (3) 16

6.4 Enhanced your networking 18.8% (3) 43.8% (7) 18.8% (3)18.8%

(3)0.0% (0) 16


2


skipped question 2

5 of 8





Response

Count

6

answered question 6

skipped question 12



Not

important

Relatively

unimportant

Moderately

important

Highly

important

No

opinion

Response

Count

8.1 Pre-ICN Forums 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 26.7% (4)66.7%

(10)6.7% (1) 15

8.2 Travel grants 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 40.0% (6) 40.0% (6) 20.0% (3) 15

8.3 Speaker grants 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 46.7% (7) 33.3% (5) 20.0% (3) 15

8.4 Research grants 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 40.0% (6) 40.0% (6) 20.0% (3) 15

8.5 Publication grants 0.0% (0) 13.3% (2) 26.7% (4) 26.7% (4) 33.3% (5) 15


skipped question 3

6 of 8



and research?

Response

Percent

Response

Count


support25.0% 4



No 6.3% 1


skipped question 2




Response

Percent

Response

Count

International

100.0% 6

Regional

33.3% 2

National

33.3% 2

Other

16.7% 1

answered question 6

skipped question 12

7 of 8


ICN Forums?

Response

Count

7

answered question 7

skipped question 11


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Africa 0.0% 0

Asia 0.0% 0

Europe 50.0% 9



Oceania 11.1% 2


skipped question 0


Response

Percent

Response

Count

Male 77.8% 14

Female 22.2% 4


skipped question 0

8 of 8


Response

Percent

Response

Count


6-10 years 27.8% 5

11-15 years 11.1% 2



skipped question 0

ANNEX 8

Bibliography

ICN documentation available at http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org; i.e. all reports of ICN Conferences (e.g. A Report on the Fourth Annual Conference of the ICN held in Bonn, Germany, on June 6-8, 2005); working group reports, e.g. Advocacy; Agency Effectiveness

All reports, presentations, agendas and papers prepared for IDRC Forums, made available to the evaluators by IDRC: e.g. IDRC Pre-ICN Forum on Competition & Development: Record of the Proceedings: ‘Alliance building for a culture of compliance’ IDRC, 2011

IDRC studies/supported research: including

• Boza, Tailor - made competition policy in a standardizing world : a study from the perspective of developing economies, 2005;

• Fox, Alliance building for a culture of compliance : countering weaknesses in competition law enforcement 2011;

• IDRC Pre-ICN Forum on Competition and Development Alliance Building for a Culture of Compliance : session 1: the general case for alliance building, 2011;

• Jenny, General case for alliance building, 2011; • Kaira, Design, process and procedures in the competition laws and agency effectiveness : a case for

Botswana and Zambia, 2011; • Lewis, For IDRC/ICN Conference, 2011; • Bakhoum, Regional institutional design and competition law enforcement : exploring the West African

experience, 2011; • Joekes, Evans, Competition and development : the power of competitive markets , 2008; • Clarke, Stewart, Joekes, Competition law in action : experiences from developing countries, 2007

IDRC PAD documentation

• PAD 105649 2011 pre ICN Forum, • PAD 105649 PAD - March 1 draft • PAD 105649, March 2011

The International Competition Network at Ten, ed. P. Lugard (Cambridge: Intersentia, 2011)

Marsden, Exclusionary Business Practices and their Effects on Competition and Development (Geneva: United Nations, 2005)

Regulation and Competition in the Global Economy: Cooperation, Comity and Competition Policy, (Oxford: OUP, 2010)

http://www.internationalcompetitionnetwork.org/

http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/handle/10625/35070










https://owa.biicl.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/handle/10625/35666

https://owa.biicl.org/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/handle/10625/34541

http://www.biicl.org/files/1102_exclusionary_anticompetitive_practices.pdf

ANNEX 9

IDRC-supported publications on competition policy

Year of publication

Title Author

2005 Competition provisions in regional trade agreements : how to assure development gains

United Nations; Puri, Lakshmi; Brusick, Philippe; Alvarez, Ana María; Cernat, Lucian

2005 Consumer protection and quality of life in Africa through competition and regulation : 2004 annual report

Shallat, Lezak

2005 Competition, efficiency and competition policy in Tunisia : country report

Ben Jelili, Riadh

2005 Tailor - made competition policy in a standardizing world : a study from the perspective of developing economies

Boza, Beatriz

2005 Nightmare in a spoonful of sugar : a study on the impact of liberalisation of the sugar industry on consumers in Indonesia

Yayasan Lembaga Konsumen Indonesia (YLKI)

2005 Import parity pricing : a competitive constraint or a source of market power ?

Parr, Geoff

2005 Getting connected : a comparative study of consumer benefits arising from competition in the telecommunications markets of Bangladesh, Indonesia, Pakistan and Thailand

Cameron, Ronald John

2005 Competition, competition policy and economic efficiency in the MENA region : the case of Egypt

Abdel Latif, Lobna; Farouk Ghoneim, Ahmed

2005 Condiciones generales de competencia en Panamá Fernández, Marco A.

2005 Condiciones generales de competencia : el caso de Nicaragua

Ansorena Montero, Claudio

2005 GENESIS : promoting competitive markets in South Africa

Malherbe, Stephan; Myburgh, Andrew; Kosoff, Jacob; Anderson, Paul

2005 Competition, competition policy and economic efficiency in the MENA region : Jordan's country report; final report

Saif, Ibrahim; Barakat, Nesreen

2005 Promoting competitive markets in Mexico : prepared for the Workshop "Promoting Competitive Markets in Developing Economies", Buenos Aires, Argentina, Mar. 3-5, 2005

García-Verdú, Rodrigo; Solano, Oliver

2005 Promoting competitive markets in developing economies (the case of Egypt)

Ghoneim, Ahmed Farouk

2006 Consumer rights and the elimination of poverty through global trade : final report, 1 Jan. - 31 Dec. 2005

Consumers International

2006 Sustainable access to water services : what role for competition?

Simpson, Robin






http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Shallat%2C+Lezak&value_lang=en



http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Ben+Jelili%2C+Riadh&value_lang=en




http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Boza%2C+Beatriz&value_lang=en




http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Yayasan+Lembaga+Konsumen+Indonesia+%28YLKI%29&value_lang=en

http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Yayasan+Lembaga+Konsumen+Indonesia+%28YLKI%29&value_lang=en



http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Parr%2C+Geoff&value_lang=en





http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Cameron%2C+Ronald+John&value_lang=en




http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Fern%C3%A1ndez%2C+Marco+A.&value_lang=es



http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Ansorena+Montero%2C+Claudio&value_lang=es












http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Ghoneim%2C+Ahmed+Farouk&value_lang=en




http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Consumers+International&value_lang=en



http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Simpson%2C+Robin&value_lang=en

2006 Consumer rights and the elimination of poverty through global trade : final report, 1 Jan. - 31 Dec. 2005

Consumers International

2006 Effectiveness of technical assistance, socio-economic development, and the absorptive capacity of competition authorities

Evenett, Simon J.

2006 Competition problems in the distribution of television programs in Argentina

Comisión Nacional de Defensa de la Competencia (CNDC)

2006 Mercados en el Istmo Centroamericano y México : qué ha pasado con la competencia?

CEPAL; Rivera, Eugenio; Schatan, Claudia

2006 Centroamérica y México : política de competencia a principios del siglo XXI

Rivera, Eugenio; Schatan, Claudia

2006 Centroamérica y México : política de competencia a principios del siglo XXI

Rivera, Eugenio; Schatan, Claudia

2006 Condiciones generales de competencia en Guatemala

Romero, Antonio; González, Carlos E.

2006 Condiciones y políticas de competencia : economías pequeñas de Centroamérica y el Caribe

CEPAL; Fondo de Cultura Económica; Schatan, Claudia; Avalos, Marcos

2006 Competencia bancaria en México Avalos, Marcos; Hernández Trillo, Fausto

2006 Competencia y regulación en las telecomunicaciones : el caso de Nicaragua

Gabor, Dana; Ansorena, Claudio

2006 Competition and the millennium development goals : new "evidence" from official sources

Evenett, Simon J.

2006 Distribution and the price of food : competition and the hunger millennium development goal

Farina, Elizabeth

2006 Sustainable access to water services : what role for competition?

Simpson, Robin

2006 Competition advocacy : time for a rethink? Evenett, Simon J.

2006 Does the return of industrial policy pose a threat to competition law?

Evenett, Simon J.

2006 Database of allegations of private anti-competitive practices in Sub-Saharan Africa

Evenett, Simon J.; Jenny, Frédéric; Meier, Michael

2006 Conformity with international recommendations on merger reviews : an economic perspective on "soft law"

Evenett, Simon J.; Hijzen, Alexander

2006 Trouble in paradise : will technocrats review global mergers forever?

Evenett, Simon J.

2006 Economic impact of the U.S. Export Trading Company Act

Levenstein, Margaret C.; Suslow, Valerie Y.

2006 Sustainable access to water services : what role for competition?; the case of South Africa

Ueckermann, E.M.

2006 Regoverning markets (brochure) Vorley, Bill

2007 An assessment of impediments to competition in the pharmaceutical sector in Jamaica

The Fair Trading Commission (FTC)

2007 Competition law in action : experiences from developing countries

Stewart, Taimoon; Clarke, Julian; Joekes, Susan




http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Consumers+International&value_lang=en




http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Evenett%2C+Simon+J.&value_lang=en



http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Comisi%C3%B3n+Nacional+de+Defensa+de+la+Competencia+%28CNDC%29&value_lang=en

http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Comisi%C3%B3n+Nacional+de+Defensa+de+la+Competencia+%28CNDC%29&value_lang=en



















http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Farina%2C+Elizabeth&value_lang=en



http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Simpson%2C+Robin&value_lang=en


















http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Ueckermann%2C+E.M.&value_lang=en


http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Vorley%2C+Bill&value_lang=en



http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=The+Fair+Trading+Commission+%28FTC%29

http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=The+Fair+Trading+Commission+%28FTC%29



2007 Politics trumps economics : lessons and experiences on competition and regulatory regimes from developing countries

CUTS International

2007 International money transfer services market in Uzbekistan : development, competition and trends

Antimonopoly Policy Improvement Center, State Committee of Republic Uzbekistan on Demonopolization, Support of Competition and Entrepreneurship

2007 Best practices in defense of competition in Argentina and Brazil : useful aspects for Central America

Petrecolla, Diego

2007 Competencia y regulación en la banca : el caso de Costa Rica

Yong Chacón, Marlon

2007 Assessment of impediments to competition in the pharmaceutical sector in Jamaica

Harriott, Kevin; Miller, David; Lee, Barbara; Peart, Oretia; McDonald, Lyndel; Fair Trading Commission (FTC); Consumer Affairs Commission (CAC); University of Technology (UTECH)

2007 Regulación y competencia en las telecomunicaciones mexicanas

Mariscal, Judith; Rivera, Eugenio

2007 Competencia y regulación en las telecomunicaciones : el caso de Guatemala

Urizar, Carmen

2007 Competencia y regulación en la banca : el caso de Nicaragua

Ansorena, Claudio

2007 Competencia y regulación en la banca : el caso de el Salvador

Herrera, Mauricio

2007 Competencia y regulación en la banca de Centroamérica y México : un estudio comparativo

Rivera, Eugenio; Rodríguez, Adolfo

2007 Competencia y regulación en la banca : el caso de Panamá

Paredes, Gustavo Adolfo; Morales, Jovany

2007 Mejores prácticas en materia de defensa de la competencia en Argentina y Brasil : aspectos útiles para Centroamérica

Petrecolla, Diego

2007 Modelos de privatización y desarrollo de la competencia en las telecomunicaciones de Centroamérica y México

Rivera, Eugenio

2007 Report of the Symposium Political Economy Constraints in Regulatory Regimes in Developing Countries, Mar. 22-24, 2007, New Delhi

CUTS International

2007 Inclusive agrifood markets : emerging findings from a programme of research and policy development

Vorley, Bill; Proctor, Felicity

2008 Competition policies in emerging economies : lessons and challenges from Central America and Mexico

Rivera Urrutia, Eugenio

2008 Competition and development : the power of competitive markets

Joekes, Susan P.; Evans, Phil




http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=CUTS+International&value_lang=en



http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Antimonopoly+Policy+Improvement+Center%2C+State+Committee+of+Republic+Uzbekistan+on+Demonopolization%2C+Support+of+Competition+and+Entrepreneurship&value_lang=en









http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Petrecolla%2C+Diego&value_lang=en



http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Yong+Chac%C3%B3n%2C+Marlon&value_lang=es







http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Urizar%2C+Carmen&value_lang=es



http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Ansorena%2C+Claudio&value_lang=es



http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Herrera%2C+Mauricio&value_lang=es








http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Petrecolla%2C+Diego&value_lang=es




http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Rivera%2C+Eugenio&value_lang=es




http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=CUTS+International&value_lang=en






http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Rivera+Urrutia%2C+Eugenio&value_lang=en



2008 Inclusive business in agrifood markets : evidence and action; a report based on proceedings of a conference held in Beijing, 5-6 March 2008

Center for Chinese Agricultural Policy (CCAP); International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED); Office of Agricultural Vertical Integration, Ministry of Agriculture, PRC

2008 IDRC final technical report : regoverning markets; the keys to inclusion of smallscale producers in dynamic agrifood chains

International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), Sustainable Markets Group

2008 Patterns in and determinants and effects of farmers' marketing strategies in developing countries : synthesis report - micro study

Jikun Huang; Reardon, Thomas

2008 Meso-level restructuring of the food industry in developing countries : synthesis report - meso study

Reardon, Thomas; Jikun Huang

2009 Report : using competition law to regulate anticompetitive practices in the pharmaceutical distribution system in Vietnam

Anh, Pham Thi Que; Lan, Tran Phuong; Linh, Truong Thuy; Nhung, Tran Phuong; Vietnam. Ministry of Industry and Trade, Competition Administration Department

2011 Alliance building for a culture of compliance : countering weaknesses in competition law enforcement

Fox, Eleanor

2011 Migrants contribute to development, yet their transfers are overcharged : why? and what can be done about it?; a perspective from Morocco

Achy, Lahcen

2011 Study of remittances in Uzbekistan : into new times with new ideas, May 17, 2011, The Hague, ND

Kholjigitov, Golib

2011 IDRC Pre-ICN Forum on Competition and Development Alliance Building for a Culture of Compliance : session 1: the general case for alliance building

Fels, Allan

2011 Remittances : what role can consumer organisations play?

Consumers International; MacMullan, Justin

2011 General case for alliance building Jenny, Frederic

2011 Design, process and procedures in the competition laws and agency effectiveness : a case for Botswana and Zambia

Kaira, Thula

2011 For IDRC/ICN Conference Lewis, David

2011 Regional institutional design and competition law enforcement : exploring the West African experience

Bakhoum, Mor

Source: IDRC Library







http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=International+Institute+for+Environment+and+Development+%28IIED%29%2C+Sustainable+Markets+Group&value_lang=en















http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Fox%2C+Eleanor




http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Achy%2C+Lahcen



http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Kholjigitov%2C+Golib





http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Fels%2C+Allan




http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Jenny%2C+Frederic




http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Kaira%2C+Thula


http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Lewis%2C+David&value_lang=en



http://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/browse?type=author&value=Bakhoum%2C+Mor

ANNEX 10

Acronyms

ASCOLA — Academic Society for Competition Law

ASEAN — Association of Southeast Asian Nations

CBC — Canadian Competition Bureau

COMESA — Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa

COMPAL — Competition and Consumer Protection Policies for Latin America (UNCTAD programme)

CSOs — Civil society organisations

ICAP — Interstate Council on Antimonopoly Policy

ICN — International Competition Network

IDRC — International Development Research Centre

IDRC Forums — IDRC Pre-International Competition Network Conference Forums

OECD — Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

SADC — Southern African Development Community

SEP — IDRC Social and Economic Policy

UNCTAD — United Nations Conference on Trade and Development

ANNEX 11

Biographies of the Evaluators

Philip Marsden is Senior Research Fellow at the British Institute for International and Comparative Law, London, and Director of the Institute’s Competition Law Forum. He advises the European Commission, OECD, UNCTAD and London School of Economics with respect to analysis, peer review and training of officials and judges relating to competition issues in developing countries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia. He is a member of the Advisory Council to Advocates for International Development, a charity which provides pro bono legal advice to developing countries. Philip is also Non-executive Director on the Boards of the UK Office of Fair Trading and the Jersey Competition Regulatory Authority, and Public Advisor to the Lithuanian Competition Council. He is also Visiting Professor at the College of Europe, Bruges, teaching the core LL.M. competition course and is co-founder and General Editor of the European Competition Journal. Prior to joining the British Institute in 2003, Philip practised competition law in Toronto, Tokyo and London, and was a competition official in Ottawa. He earned his doctorate in competition and trade law from the University of Oxford. [email protected]

Ricardo Wilson-Grau is an independent evaluator and organizational development consultant He resides in Brazil but works solely internationally. Since 2003, he has concentrated his work on the monitoring and evaluation of over a dozen international social change networks and the programmes of development funding agencies (ActionAid, Doen Foundation, Hivos, IDRC, Ford, Oxfam Novib, PSO, the Open Society Institute, the UN Trust Fund to End Violence Against Women). Prior to his work as an independent consultant, Ricardo was a factory worker and door-to-door salesman in the USA, surveyor and community development worker in Colombia, publishing executive in the Puerto Rico, field director for the American Friends Service Committee in Guatemala, director of the Latin American Programme of experiential Friends World College, journalist and managing director of Inforpress Centroamericana in Guatemala, senior manager with Greenpeace International in Amsterdam, and foreign aid advisor with Novib, the Dutch Oxfam. [email protected]

http://www.a4id.org/

http://www.a4id.org/

http://www.oft.gov.uk/about/structure/board/

http://www.jcra.je/

http://www.jcra.je/

http://www.konkuren.lt/en/index.php?show=news_view&pr_id=843

http://www.coleurope.be/

http://www.hartjournals.co.uk/ecj/

mailto:[email protected]

forums on competition and · the international competition network (icn) was formed a decade ago as...

Documents