Introduction
Currently it seems planning and competition laws in the UK stifle rather then improve innovation, or perhaps they are engineered in a way that isn’t maximal?
Is there an argument for shooting ourselves in the foot. If the progression 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. Can UK workers end up worse off with the regulators in place? Regulators should be there to avoid obvious pitfalls 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.
2. Create a fair market where innovation is rewarded, while addressing Environmental-Social-Governance concerns and setting achievable targets that promote sustainable growth.
Net-zero
Net-zero is a key environmental priority for reducing the effects of climate change on our future. Ensuring that businesses transition to green infrastructure and supply change should therefore be an aim that guides the planning system. Important to this is setting achievable targets that don’t sacrifice an industries global competitiveness.
Arbitrary targets for example net-zero by ‘arbitrary date’, can hamper progress by forcing industries to reach these goals by sacrificing jobs, competitiveness, and reducing output. Instead targets should be in investing in infrastructure, innovation and jobs that sets a path that industry feels able to follow.
Most importantly these targets need to be clear and unambiguous, so that industry can rest assured that they won’t make the changes now just for the goals to shift in the near future.
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.