1. Status of Competition in Nepal
Neelu Thapa
South Asia Watch on Trade, Economics & Environment (SAWTEE)

2. Interviewees 25 Policymakers 25 Government officials
50 consumers - including economic journalists, academicians, civil society activists, and lawyers

3. Background and Methodology
Separate questionnaires for each group
Multiple choice
Initial focus to probe extent of public awareness
Focus of survey thus changed to fairly informed population

4. Results Overview
Large population without a clear concept of “competition.”
All groups viewed anticompetitive practices to be prevalent in Nepal
Overwhelming majority in favour of Comprehensive Competition Law

5. Extent of Anti-Competitive Practices in Nepal
Anticompetitive practice (significant):
Consumers- 88%,
Policymakers-64%,
Business Community-36%
Anticompetitive practice (moderate):
Consumers-10%
Policymakers-20%
Business community-44%
Monopoly as most common practice
Others: entry barriers, tied selling, collective price fixing and resale price maintenance

6. Action Taken Consumers Business Community 50% ignore and deal
24% go to another supplier
18% argue and deal
6% complain to government authorities
Business Community
35% match move of anticompetitive practitioner
35% talk to business peers and settle issue
25% negotiate directly with anti competitive practitioner
5% complain to government authorities

7. Awareness of legislation
Majority could not relate laws to anticompetitive practices
Consumer Awareness 34%
Business Community Awareness 44%
Policy makers Awareness 76%
Most referred law: Consumer Protection Act
44% aware of Consumer Protection Act
Majority were Policy Makers

8. Competition Law 92% of all respondents opine law should be enacted
Only 8 consumers were not sure if such a law was needed.
Objective of law
Consumers: regulate business activity and promote consumer welfare
Business community: promote efficiency NOT regulate business activity
Policymakers: all three

9. Structure of Competition Authority
Majority favoured independent authority
Consumers 94%
Policymakers 40%
Business Community 64%
Investigative and Adjudicative Powers
Consumers 76%
Policymakers 72%

10. Implementation of Law Majority agreed to phase wise manner
Policymakers: per se approach
Business Community: Rule of Reason
Consumers: per se approach
84% monopoly itself not anticompetitive
73% mergers and acquisitions should be reviewed