Activities
Reputation survey
The Competition Authority conducted a reputation survey during the autumn of 2008 along the same lines as in previous years. This survey shows that the Authority faces a few challenges relating to knowledge about the Authority, the Competition Act and the time it takes to handle cases. On the other hand, its user groups have a good impression of the Authority in terms of its economic and legal expertise.
The Competition Authority elected not to conduct another reputation survey in 2009. There are several reasons for this, including the fact that undertaking such a survey is extremely demanding on resources. However, the most important reason is that the Authority is concerned that such a comprehensive survey containing a relatively large number of questions each year would place an undue burden on the respondents - who are generally the same from one year to the next. In order to avoid this problem and thus ensure quality answers and a high response rate, the Competition Authority has consequently decided to conduct its reputation survey every second year.
Results
Due to the fact that the Competition Authority did not conduct a reputation or deterrence survey in 2009, it is difficult to document the results of the efforts that have been made to maintain the reputation of the Competition Authority.
On the other hand, in 2009 Asplan Viak undertook an evaluation of the Competition Authority's move to Bergen. In addition, each year the Competition Authority is evaluated by the Global Competition Review's "Rating Enforcement." We also have Synovate's 2009 Image Survey and Difi's (the Agency for Public Management and eGovernment) Annual Quality Assessment of Public Websites. The main points to emerge from these evaluations are included below.
Synovate's 2009 image survey
Synovate's 2009 Image Survey shows weakened ratings for the Competition Authority as compared with the previous year in respect of: i) social responsibility; ii) efficiency and financial management; iii) openness and information; and iv) expertise and specialist knowledge.
Difi's Annual Quality Assessment
The Competition Authority's website was awarded top marks (six stars) by Difi in its Annual Quality Assessment. This includes 100% compliance with its requirement in respect of accessibility.
”Evaluation of moving state activities: the Competition Authority”
This report was commissioned from Asplan Viak by the Ministry of Government Administration and Reform. The report points out that the Authority has a young, inexperienced staff. This is partly due to the move which resulted in a high turnover of staff. The management have consequently devoted a lot of time to the recruitment and training of new employees. This can place a double burden on young, inexperienced managers since they have to become accustomed to their management roles and also engage in comprehensive recruitment about which they have little experience. The experienced managers, of which there were few, therefore had to take on major responsibilities for training. Hence, during the most intensive winding down and building up phases the whole organisation was clearly less than fully focussed on its external activities.
However, the Authority's turnover dropped from 20% in 2007 to 15% in 2008. Consequently the Authority is operating at the same level as it was prior to the move. It has been pointed out that the move to Bergen has been distinguished by extremely close cooperation with university and business school circles for the recruitment of recently qualified students, and the exchange of employees with top expertise and professional cooperation, all of which have served to boost mutual expertise. The Competition Authority gained some professional experts at an early stage who were able to facilitate the recruitment process.
In the user surveys conducted by Asplan Viak for its evaluation, the view was expressed that the Competition Authority as an organisation is in the process of becoming established at the same quality level as it had prior to the move, and that many of the challenges faced during the move were linked to the fact that the move occurred at the same time as the rules to be enforced were undergoing substantial change.
Nevertheless, users expressed a certain amount of frustration about the high turnover, about the fact that they had to interact with many new, inexperienced employees and that this had been somewhat detrimental to the quality of the decisions made. However, at the same time they said that this has gradually become less of a problem. The general impression is that the Authority has initiated measures with positive results: the recruitment of personnel with a high degree of formal expertise, and good training. It has also been said that the work product of by the Authority is generally of a good professional standard, but that having fewer employees with practical experience leads to longer case handling times and weak performance as regards detecting the need for and initiating action. On the other hand the industry also believes that the Authority has become weaker as a political player and now lacks experience in influencing political processes.
The report concludes i.a. that the Competition Authority is now operating at the same professional level in Bergen as it previously did in Oslo.
Global Competition Review
The Competition Authority has been awarded three out of five stars in the Global Competition Review's ”Rating Enforcement,” i.e. the same as for the previous year. Each year the Global Competition Review undertakes an evaluation of the competition authorities in a number of different countries. Such evaluations are conducted on the basis of two questionnaires: one among the competition authorities themselves and one among users who deal with these authorities, including legal practitioners, economists and other academics, business consultants and lawyers.
This evaluation points out that the Authority still has a high turnover of staff and that the low average age means that the Authority does not have the senior personnel that many outside practitioners would have liked to have seen. However, the evaluation indicates that there are signs of improvement.
It also points out that the work of the Authority is relatively transparent, even though some lawyers think that it is sometimes difficult to obtain access to case papers, not just for third parties, but also for the parties themselves. On the other hand reference is made to the fact that the Authority has been successful in negotiating solutions to potential competition problems without having to implement specific enforcement measures.