Market studies and other market analysis tools for competition authorities

4. Co‑operation and cross-border market studies

This section focusses on co‑operation by competition authorities in the context of market studies or other market analysis tools, including the potential for joint studies and interactions with other regulators. The paper focusses on the benefits of co‑operation for market studies, but many of the considerations may also apply for other market analysis tools, including market investigations.

Co‑operation between competition authorities provides many benefits, particularly when the co‑operation can reduce duplication across authorities, allow sharing of best practices, and create frameworks to address joint issues. The OECD Competition Committee has been promoting and fostering international co‑operation between competition authorities for many years.1 More broadly, the Committee has also considered the role of co‑operation with other regulatory bodies, for example in (OECD, 1999[20]), (OECD, 2019[21]) and (OECD, 2022[22]).

Over time, the number of co‑operation agreements internationally involving competition has grown significantly, either at government or agency level.2 Many authorities already actively co‑operate with each other across many of their tools, and market studies are no different. Nonetheless, it is worth considering whether challenges exist which reduce the effectiveness of co‑operation or whether additional co‑operation has the potential to yield benefits. In particular, the OECD’s inventory of international co‑operation agreements (OECD, 2025[23]) identifies that explicit agreements relating to market studies are very rare, and in some cases activities of this nature are excluded from the terms of co‑operation agreements.

4.1. International co-operation in market studies

A range of types of international co‑operation are possible for competition authorities regarding market studies.3 On one hand, authorities might share information on how their respective studies are progressing. On the other, authorities might actively collaborate to produce a joint study. In between, authorities may maintain their own investigations, but co‑operate to greater degrees on different parts, for example sharing detailed information or findings, undertaking joint investigatory steps such as analysis or third-party inquiries, or even discussing the compatibility of proposed recommendations.4

The most appropriate type of co‑operation will depend upon the context and circumstances. There is little point in contemplating greater forms of co‑operation if they will not lead to benefits. In situations where an authority is considering a market study in a sector that peers have already investigated, for example, there could be significant value in knowledge sharing, but further potential for collaboration appears limited. Similarly, a market study might be a useful source of information for overseas investigations using other competition tools in the same sector, such as a merger or enforcement action, but not much more.

Knowledge sharing is an important part of improving market studies, allowing competition authorities to share insights that may assist with the study, such as relevant theories of harm and findings, as well as best practices on market studies in general. Knowledge sharing may also lead to opportunities for further collaboration, reducing duplication. For example, there may be synergies in data collection or analysis in some circumstances or the possibility of joint interviews or information requests. The latter may reduce duplication and efforts required by external stakeholders in participating in market studies. Such opportunities are most likely to present when authorities are concurrently undertaking market studies in sectors that share underlying similarities across jurisdictions.

As with other forms of co‑operation, maintaining the confidentiality of business secrets is a crucial responsibility for competition authorities and can reduce the ability to co‑operate freely with other authorities. Confidentiality waivers, which are a common practice in the field of merger control, can be useful tools for facilitating the exchange of otherwise confidential information that cannot be shared. In theory, this can include previous studies or even investigations in a similar sector by other authorities. In practice however, merging parties are likely to have different incentives compared to those facing a market study or similar analysis, and so it may be harder to obtain the necessary waivers for market studies.

4.1.1. Joint market studies

As many economic markets become increasingly international, there may be greater potential for competition authorities to conduct joint or coordinated market studies. A collaborative approach may be better placed to tackle competition issues that affect cross-border markets. Reducing duplication and pooling resources has the potential to lower costs compared to separate studies, implying the potential for more resources to be placed on enriching the study.

There may also be more influential findings from a joint study from multiple authorities or regulators, given the larger number of bodies involved. This is relevant when considering the advocacy nature of market study recommendations and potential difficulties in persuading private and public stakeholders of their merits. Further, while there will likely be benefits from joining analysis streams and information gathering, combining into a joint study does not mean the inability to consider country specific issues, which could be undertaken in addition to common parts of the project.

The concept of joint market studies is not new. The ICN Market Studies Good Practice Handbook notes the potential for jointly working on market studies, although also acknowledges the challenges (ICN, 2016[5]). There are several examples of countries in the Nordics conducting joint market studies, including on online pharmacies and digital platforms (Nordic Competition Authorities, 2020[24]). Box 6 provides more detail on the online pharmacy markets report. Similar collaborative work has been undertaken by competition authorities in in the Baltics.5 Such collaborations could also be used to consider more general competition issues rather than specific markets. France and Germany have worked together on several joint projects that could be considered market studies, including on algorithms and competition (Autorité de la concurrence and Bundeskartellamt, 2019[25]), or the several reports by BRICS countries on the digital sector.6

Collaborative market studies could also be undertaken by a third party on behalf of the relevant jurisdictions. For example, the OECD is currently conducting a market study into online marketplaces in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania as part of the European Union’s Technical Support Instrument.7

Box 6. Online pharmacy markets in the Nordics

Published in April 2021, competition authorities from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden collaborated to produce a joint report on online pharmacy markets. Despite being highly digitalised countries, the Nordic countries observed that there were differences between them when it came to markets for online pharmaceutical products. These markets were experiencing a boost in demand following the Covid-19 pandemic, and the countries therefore decided to examine competition in these markets more closely.

The report therefore considered online pharmacy markets across the participating countries, including a chapter dedicated to each individual market. The analysis for each country considered the functioning of the market, the challenges observed, as well as a focus on the role of sector-specific regulation in preventing competition. In addition to dedicated chapters for each country, the report contained a chapter dedicated to explaining the characteristics of online pharmacy markets in general, such as how to define it and identifying relevant issues for consumers and competition.

As well as identifying country specific recommendations, the report emphasised the potential benefits for consumers from a thriving online pharmacy market, including its potential to increase competition when compared to traditional pharmacists. The report also noted that there was scope for the participating countries to learn best practices from each other in terms of regulatory practices in pharmacy markets.

Source: Joint Nordic Report (2021) Online Pharmacy Markets in the Nordics, April, https://en.kfst.dk/media/wrvjrfox/nordic-joint-report_online-pharmacy-markets-in-the-nordics_2021-final-a.pdf

Joint market studies are clearly not without challenges, however, and not appropriate for all situations (ICN, 2016[5]). As noted in the section above, prioritising and deciding upon the best course of action for a competition authority is often a multi-dimensional judgement which faces several uncertainties. In such an environment, aligning timing and priorities such that a joint study is feasible may be a challenge.

Further, managing and delivering the project is itself likely to raise challenges, with a need for decision making processes and management structures to be clearly identified. The more this can take place at a joint level, the greater the likely synergies, but also the greater practical challenges as different organisations, with different statutory responsibilities and accountabilities, work together. More generally, there may be risks of moral hazard and incentives to free ride, particularly in the light of competing priorities. In addition, underlying differences across countries may lead to situations where potential recommendations do not work for all participating countries, risking divergence and potentially reducing the standing of joint findings.8

4.1.2. Domestic collaboration

The potential for co‑operation, including joint studies, is not limited to international collaboration between competition authorities. There is also significant scope for working closely domestically with other regulators, and many competition authorities already do so.9 This could include jointly conducting studies.10 Co‑operation opportunities may be increasing, as a wider array of policy areas appear to interact with competition, such as privacy and data protection within the context of digital markets.

Co‑operation between domestic regulators, or other relevant parties, and competition authorities during a market study could generate several mutual benefits. For example, the competition authority can benefit from sector specific expertise and also potentially identify a partner to assist in the implementation of any future recommendations. For the sector regulator, co‑operation reduces the risk of recommendations being formed absent the full context of the sector, as well as to consider how competition might improve outcomes in a sector. Co‑operation also reduces the risk of duplication of regulatory effort. It may also allow specialist regulators to enhance a study. Secondees can also form part of this co‑operation.

One particular area for potential collaboration is consumer protection. There may be significant overlap between competition and consumer issues in some markets, with issues that affect consumers leading to detriments in the effectiveness of competition (and vice versa). As such, there could be value in considering these issues at the same time. There are various examples of market studies that consider issues with a competition and consumer perspective.11 Competition and consumer functions are joined in several authorities, and so for these agencies the collaboration is internal rather than with another body. For authorities with joint powers, market studies can be a useful tool for understanding long-term competition and consumer issues simultaneously (Naismith and Mullen, 2022[2]). For jurisdictions that do not have joint competencies, or where the competencies are split, co‑operating or collaborating on a study may be valuable.

Notes

← 1.  The OECD website provides more information on the work of the OECD in this area: https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/competition-and-international-co-operation.html

← 2.  OECD analysis of OECD Competition Enforcement Co-operation Database, see: https://www.oecd.org/en/topics/sub-issues/competition-and-international-co-operation.html

← 3.  While the discussion focusses on international co‑operation, it might also be relevant for co‑operation between different competition authorities within the same jurisdiction, for example when regions or states have their own separate competition authorities, or between national authorities and regional bodies that their nation is part of, and which also have competencies for competition.

← 4.  The OECD Competition Committee’s Working Party 3 on Competition Enforcement will hold a Roundtable on Co‑operation in Remedy Design in December 2025.

← 5.  See Competition Council Republic of Latvia Press Release, Latvian and Lithuanian competition authorities are launching a monitoring of online marketplaces, 16/03/2022, https://www.kp.gov.lv/en/article/latvian-and-lithuanian-competition-authorities-are-launching-monitoring-online-marketplaces

← 6.  See for example the BRICs competition website on Digital Markets, https://www.bricscompetition.org/research/digital-markets

← 7.  See OECD website, OECD Competition Market Study: Digital Sector in Poland, Latvia and Lithuania, https://www.oecd.org/en/about/projects/oecd-competition-market-study-digital-sector-in-poland-latvia-and-lithuania.html

← 8.  This could be in terms of the competition issues that are identified, but potentially also due to the national context or tradition.

← 9.  Competition authorities often sign memorandums of understanding with other regulators. For example, Italy’s competition authority, AGCM recently signed a three-year co‑operation agreement with the financial markets authority, CONSOB, which strengthened co‑operation in their areas of mutual interest. See AGCM Press Release, Protocollo d’intesa fra AGCM e CONSOB per collaborazione su settori di comune interesse, 16/09/2025, https://www.agcm.it/media/comunicati-stampa/2025/9/Protocollo-d-intesa-fra-AGCM-e-CONSOB-per-collaborazione-su-settori-di-comune-interesse.

← 10.  There are many examples, including through formal collaborations, such as the Australian Digital Platform Regulators Forum, a forum of regulators, which has published several working papers that consider competition in a sector, including a working paper considering Large Language Models (Digital Platform Regulators Forum, 2023[26]). Other joint work between regulators and competition authorities can be a collaboration to produce a particular piece of work or to share comments on the work of another. For example, as part of a 2015 study into access to internet services in Colombia, the competition authority requested information and solicited comments from the communications regulator (Superintendencia de Industria y Comercio, 2015[27]).

← 11.  This is most likely when an authority holds joint competition and consumer protection powers. For example, the Australian Digital Platforms Inquiry for example considers both competition and consumer issues, as has the CMA’s Foundation Models Review, both are discussed in Box 2.