Planning and Competition
Introduction
Allowing people the freedom to come up with their own idea, act on it, and reap the rewards of their risk, is an important part on motivating hard work and creativity. Possibly even those who act once, won’t just have one innovation and will be ‘serial’ inventors, their previous rewards help to fuel a chain reaction of ‘creation’.
There is however the effect that people think from a short-term frame, invent now, take profit. Relax on the profit they have generated. Investors can be motivated by these short term time frames, always looking for the next ‘fad’ to make a short term gain on. We need to seriously look at how we can encourage companies to invest in the future rather then practices like price-gouging, ‘layoffs’ focused on increasing profit margin rather then innovation.
It feels as if some of the planning and competition laws in the UK stifle rather then improve innovation.
Could there be an argument that sometimes we are shooting ourselves in the foot. If the progress towards innovation is stifled by monopolistic tendencies and the regulators step in, but stifle innovation with excess bureaucracy, is it at a net negative to UK industry? How can we reach an optimum point.
Can the workforce sometimes end up worse off with the regulators in place? Regulators should be there to avoid obvious pitfalls and anti-competitive practice rather then stifle innovation.
Planning and competition come hand in hand in the UK. ### What is the aim of a planning & competition system? #### 1. Foster efficient use of resources (materials, energy, intelligence)
Efficient markets Ensure that materials and resources necessary are available, with those industries where competition is not efficient (natural monopolies) national, those with high competition, the state takes a back role (the market will take the front step), and those with little market involvement because of high risk / low profit margins - foundational R&D, essential resources (steel) with enough governmental involvement to provide a minimum service level.
‘A minimum provision’ would allow continuing development of low- areas ready for natural competition to capitalize on progress and the skills-base if innovation makes it more efficient and cost effective. It also should provide supply-chain security for the UKs national protection in vital resources, minerals ready for worst case scenarios.
3. Ensure speed to market with continuous engagement over pre-planning and excess friction, prioritising stakeholder input and adaptability throughout the process
Excess planning, no progress
It seems as if many projects require 100s of pages of documents just to reach a stage where they are able to go through competition stages of the tender process. A good planning system would value ideas over excess dependence on consulting and documentation. Risks and priorities should be assessed continuously, with a focus on adaptibility of ideas.
Take for example the British nuclear projects, it has taken years for ground to be even dug with firms not able to invest without knowing for sure they will move forwards in the bidding process. If firms are given contract security earlier, they can prioritise the project and sink engineering time and resources, speeding up the process.