The following keynote speech by Deputy Head of the OECD Competition Division Antonio Capobianco was delivered during the opening of our Next-Generation Regulation: Competition Law in the Digital, Intelligent, and Sustainable Economy conference in Istanbul, Turkiye, on November 7, 2025.
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen,
It’s a real privilege to be here with you today at such an important gathering of competition law professionals, scholars, and policymakers. And for that I am very grateful to the GW Competition and Innovation Lab and to the Bogazici University and to all the sponsors of today’s event.
When I saw the topic of my introductory remarks (“The future of competition law …”) I immediately thought of an old Chinese proverb: “To define the future, one must study the past.” (Confucius). Being able to glimpse at how the future of competition policy would shape was - at least for me - one of the reasons why I joined the OECD many years ago. I have always liked to compare the OECD to a crystal ball that allows you to peep into future trends by looking at what is on today’s policy agenda of the Competition Committee.
But in this “… Rapidly Changing Global Order”, I am afraid that the visions in the crystal ball are becoming increasing misty and blurred. And this is probably the first point I can make today. We are sailing into unchartered waters, where some of what we thought in the past to be undisputed paradigms are today increasingly put into question: how competition policy relates to other policies? What are the objectives of competition law? Should competition enforcement be truly independent or is it another tools in the hands of government to achieve wider goals? Is ex ante regulation a better response to problems with the functioning of markets than competition enforcement? What is the role of the State in the economy and in the market?
For many years now, the OECD and its Competition Committee have been at the forefront of global efforts to adapt competition policy to a rapidly changing world. Today, I’d like to share with you a few key themes that have shaped our work and, I hope, will contribute to define the future of competition policy. I chose them hoping that they can provide the panel discussions that will follow the broader policy context, at least as I see it from a very personal perspective. So the usual disclaimers apply.
1. Insights on Industrial Policy and Competition Policy
Let me start with some observations on the relationship between competition policy and the broader policy agenda of governments. For a long time, we (including at the OECD) have worked hard to insulate competition policy from external influences. We argued that competition policy has its very clear and unique goals, uses very specific and complex analytical tools, it requires unique expertise and skills, and deserves to be protected by a cloak of independence from political interferences and that competition policy did not need to be diluted by other policy goals.
As we navigate an era marked by geopolitical shifts, technological disruptions, and economic uncertainty, the relationship between competition policy and other polices (especially industrial policy) has come under a renewed scrutiny. The OECD has been at the forefront of this debate, offering critical insights into how these two domains can (and must!) coexist in a rapidly changing global order.
Historically, competition policy has served as a guardian of market efficiencies, consumer welfare, and innovation. It seeks to prevent anti-competitive practices and ensure that markets remain open, contestable and dynamic. Industrial policy, on the other hand, often aims to steer economic development, support strategic sectors, and respond to national priorities. In other words, the two policies can coexist: government should not stack the playing field by picking winners and losers but leave that to the market and to the competitive process, but they can - and probably should - pick the battles to fight.
However, at times, these complementary objectives may appear to be in tension. Industrial policy can be inherently selective, picking winners and shielding them from market forces. Industrial policy may seek to achieve broader and longer term economic goals like technological leadership, job creation, or national security, even if that means favoring certain players. Competition policy rather focuses on immediate, short-term market outcomes: prices, quality, consumer choice.
Our recent work shows that this tension is not inevitable. In fact, well-designed industrial policies can be pro-competitive. The key lies in ensuring that industrial policy does not distort market dynamics or favor incumbents at the expense of innovation and consumer choice. In this way, we emphasized that government interventions if transparent, non-discriminatory, time-bound and grounded in competition principles, can reinforce rather than undermine competitive markets.
The Committee has also highlighted the role of competition authorities in shaping industrial policy. Through advocacy and enforcement, authorities can help ensure that industrial strategies are aligned with competition goals. They can also ensure that competition provides a strong foundation for successful policy implementation. This includes not only scrutinizing subsidies or state aid, but keeping markets competitive through enforcement, and most importantly reviewing regulatory frameworks to prevent unintended anti-competitive effects from ill-designed policies.
In today’s global order, where supply chains are being reconfigured and strategic autonomy is gaining prominence, the OECD’s message is clear: competition policy must remain a cornerstone of economic governance. It is not a constraint on industrial ambition; it is a prerequisite for efficient, sustainable, inclusive growth.
As we look to the future, the challenge is not to choose between competition and industrial policy, but to design frameworks where they reinforce each other.
But what does the crystal ball say … ? Very difficult to read the future in this case… I see an increase in protectionist policies, an appetite for building and supporting national champions, a revival of subsidization and restrictive trade policies. Will all this prevail and put aside sound competition policy and vigorous enforcement? Only the future will tell!
2. Rethinking the Goals of Competition Law in a Changing World
As we reflect on the future of competition law in such a rapidly evolving global landscape, one fundamental question demands our attention: What are the goals of competition law and policy, and should they be broader than consumer welfare?
Traditionally, the consumer welfare standard has been the cornerstone of competition enforcement. It emphasizes efficiency, lower prices, and increased output as the primary metrics of success. This approach has provided clarity and consistency, particularly in merger control and antitrust enforcement. The OECD has long supported this standard as a way to promote economic growth and innovation.
However, the OECD has also recognized that competition law does not operate in a vacuum. We explored the advantages and disadvantages of alternative standards, such as the total welfare standard, the citizen’s welfare standard and the protecting competition standard. These frameworks consider broader societal impacts such as fairness, sustainability, and resilience, alongside traditional economic metrics.
This shift in thinking reflects a growing awareness that markets are embedded in social and environmental contexts. For example, the OECD has examined how competition policy can support sustainability goals, at topic on today’s program and on which I will come back in a moment, including climate action, resource efficiency, democracy, and human rights. In this view, competition law becomes a tool not only for economic efficiency but also for long-term societal well-being.
Yet, expanding the goals of competition law is not without risks and challenges.
Think for example of what a broad standard means when it comes to enforcement: can these broader benefits be measured? How can we balance them against possible anticompetitive effects? And assess trade-offs across markets? Do competition authorities or courts have the necessary degree of democratic representativeness that puts them in the best place to do this balancing of objectives? What is the acceptable timeframe in which we should expect these benefits materialize and therefore to be taken into consideration? No easy questions…
Moreover, the OECD warned that if broader objectives should become part of the mandate of competition authorities, this must be pursued with legal certainty, transparency, and procedural integrity. Enforcement must remain objective and predictable, avoiding politicization or arbitrary decision-making.
So where does this leave us?
The OECD Competition Committee suggests a balanced approach. Consumer welfare remains a vital benchmark, but it need not be the only one. Competition authorities can incorporate broader goals also through prioritization, advocacy, guidance, and collaboration with other policy domains, while maintaining rigorous enforcement standards.
In a world facing climate change, digital transformation, and geopolitical fragmentation, competition law must evolve. Its goals must reflect not only the needs of consumers, but also the values of society.
But again what does the crystal ball say … ? Very difficult to read the future in this case too … we see divergence between jurisdictions, some of which include in their mandates broader goals either to align the work of the authority to the broader government agenda (e.g. growth agendas), or to respond to Ministerial steer or from broad provisions in the competition laws themselves (e.g. focus on development or on total welfare); as opposed to those who continue to see the role of competition laws focused on promoting efficiencies and on a clearly-defined narrow notion of consumer welfare.
3. Digital Markets and the Evolution of Antitrust Enforcement from Static to Dynamic Approach
An important part of today’s program will be devoted to discussing how competition law is facing a profound transformation in light of ongoing digitisation. The rise of powerful platforms, data-driven business models, and algorithmic decision-making, and now Artificial Intelligence (AI) has challenged traditional antitrust frameworks.
The OECD has been instrumental in analysing these shifts and guiding policy responses.
One of the most significant developments in antitrust enforcement in the digital era is the move from static to dynamic analysis. Traditional competition assessments often focused on static indicators, such as price levels, market shares, and short-term consumer harm. These tools were well-suited to industrial-era markets, but they fall short in capturing the complexities of digital markets and their ecosystems. Digital markets are inherently dynamic. They are characterized by rapid innovation, network effects, and winner-takes-most outcomes. Market power is not always reflected in prices, but in control over data, user attention, and access to digital infrastructure.
The recent Nobel Prize for Economics to Joel Mokyr, Philippe Aghion and Peter Howitt recognised that innovation is the lifeblood of competitive markets, not only digital markets. But it also raises complex questions: how do we assess market power in fast-moving sectors? How do we ensure that competition policy supports – rather than stifles – innovation? We have explored these questions, highlighting the role of competition in driving innovation and the need for dynamic analysis. We’ve looked at how mergers, IP rights, and market entry barriers affect innovation ecosystems. The message is clear: competition policy must evolve to better capture the nuances of innovation-driven markets.
Dynamic analysis considers innovation incentives, entry barriers, and long-term competitive trajectories. It asks not just whether a merger will raise prices today, but whether it will stifle or steer innovation tomorrow. It examines whether dominant platforms are leveraging their position to entrench market power through self-preferencing, data accumulation, or exclusionary conduct.
Importantly, the OECD warns against a one-size-fits-all approach. Dynamic analysis must be context-sensitive, grounded in economic evidence, and mindful of unintended consequences. Over-enforcement can chill innovation; under-enforcement can entrench monopolies. The challenge is to strike the right balance.
In this evolving landscape, competition authorities must become more agile, interdisciplinary, and forward-looking. They must engage with technologists, data scientists, and behavioral economists. As we look ahead, the future of antitrust enforcement lies not in abandoning traditional principles, but in reimagining them for a dynamic world.
If we go back to our crystal ball, what do we see … ? Well, in many ways I see again an unclear future, both for ex post enforcement and for ex ante regulation in the digital sphere. Why? Well, mostly because competition has arguably been weaponized in the trade wars and it has become an source of geo-political tensions. Moreover, these remain complex markets, with fast developing technologies (think of AI, GenAI, Agentic AI!) and there are still questions on the extent to which we need to adjust our legal frameworks to tackle such concerns. This has a somewhat chilling effect on enforcement, especially in agencies which are still building up digital skills and knowledge.
Take then the example of ex ante regulation, which saw the light when we realized the shortcomings of ex post enforcement. The OECD has highlighted the potential complementarity between ex ante and ex post tools. While traditional antitrust enforcement remains vital, many jurisdictions are now adopting ex ante regulations to address systemic concerns in fast-moving digital markets, which may require timely solutions. These include obligations for gatekeepers to ensure fair access, interoperability, and transparency. That said, the views on ex ante regulation as a viable solution to the challenges of the digital economy continue to be polarized, and we are seeing divergent approaches to the adoption of digital regulations and digital remedies across the world and these different views are creating a patchy regulatory landscape.
4. Sustainability and Competition Policy
I mentioned sustainability earlier. Let me come back to it, as this is the main topic for discussion this afternoon.
As the global economy confronts the urgent challenges of climate change, resource depletion, and social inequality, the question arises: can competition policy contribute to sustainability? The OECD has actively explored this intersection.
Sustainability encompasses environmental, economic, and social dimensions. It includes goals such as reducing greenhouse gas emissions, promoting circular economies, protecting biodiversity, and ensuring fair labor practices. Traditionally, competition law has focused on economic efficiency and consumer welfare. But the OECD’s analysis suggests that these goals need not be in conflict.
Already in 2020, we explored how sustainability considerations can be integrated into competition law enforcement. It identified two key pathways:
- Enforcement against anti-competitive practices that hinder sustainability, for example, cartels that suppress green innovation or abuse of dominance that blocks sustainable entrants.
- Support for sustainability-enhancing collaborations, such as joint ventures or horizontal agreements that promote environmental standards, provided they meet competition law criteria.
The Committee acknowledges that market failures often justify government intervention. But it also warns against government failures, where policy responses are insufficient or poorly designed. In this context, competition policy can play a complementary role: ensuring that sustainability initiatives do not entrench market power or reduce consumer choice.
Importantly, the OECD emphasizes the need for legal certainty and procedural integrity. Authorities must assess sustainability claims rigorously, balancing long-term societal benefits with competitive effects, including those arising in the short-term. This requires new tools, interdisciplinary expertise, and international co-operation.
Also here, we see a possible future divergence in the crystal ball. European authorities have shown increasing openness to integrating sustainability into antitrust analysis. They are exploring frameworks that allow for environmental benefits to be weighed against potential competitive harms. In contrast, U.S. agencies remains more cautious, with a stronger emphasis on consumer welfare and a reluctance to broaden the scope of competition law beyond economic efficiency.
5. International Cooperation / Convergence and Evidence-Based Policy Making
My last point is about the role of International Organizations like the OECD in this rapidly changing global order.
In an interconnected world, competition enforcement and competition policymaking cannot operate in isolation. The OECD has long served as a platform for dialogue and convergence among competition authorities and across governments.
Through our Competition Committee, its subsidiary bodies and its global and regional policy platforms, we have promoted best practices, procedural fairness, and transparency. Our joint work with the ICN, UNCTAD and other regional networks has strengthened global enforcement capacity. This co-operation is essential – especially in digital markets, mergers with global impact, and cartel investigations that cross borders. We continue to be a trusted convener in this space.
Finally, the OECD has championed evidence-based policymaking. Data helps agencies benchmark their performance, identify gaps, and design better policies. It also supports transparency and accountability, values that are essential to public trust in competition enforcement. We believe that robust data and rigorous analysis are the foundation of effective competition policy.
And on this one, I hope you won’t ask to look in the crystal ball! I prefer to remain firmly convinced that there is a role for OECD and other International Organizations in designing and promoting better policies for better lives (our motto)!
In closing, the past has shown that competition policy is not static. It must adapt to digital disruption, sustainability imperatives, global interdependence, and the demands of innovation.
At the OECD, we remain committed to supporting competition authorities with the tools, insights, and exchange platforms they need to meet these challenges. Personally, I remain convinced that policy dialogue will continue to build on the past and to inform policy making the next decades of economic transformation.
OECD analysis shows that well-functioning competition is essential for scaling innovation, reducing costs, and diffusing new and better technologies across the economy.
It also shows that competition and industrial policy can be powerful complements when industrial strategies are designed to foster rivalry, entry, and innovation rather than to protect incumbents.
And it reminds us that effective enforcement is indispensable to safeguard contestability, protect from exclusionary conduct, and ensure that sustainability goals are achieved through rivalrous innovation.
Competition authorities can also play an important role in ensuring policy interventions and regulations are proportionate through advocacy.
Finally, deeper co-operation across borders and across government agencies can help ensure that markets are not distorted or fragmented across critical supply chains.
Thank you for your attention, and I look forward to today’s discussions.