How to grade competition agencies?: Foreword

Abstract

How should we evaluate a competition authority’s performance? Rejecting purely quantitative scoring models, this article argues that numbers tell only partial, and often misleading, stories—high case counts may signal robust enforcement or systemic failure; judicial annulments may reflect poor reasoning or, alternatively, a healthy system of checks and balances. The author proposed alternative centers on narrative, justification, and good-governance metrics, emphasizing preventive enforcement, proportionality, legitimacy, responsiveness, and the lived experience of regulatees. Drawing parallels to academia’s move toward narrative CVs, Scholten calls for a richer evaluative framework—one attentive to purpose, strategy, organizational design, stakeholder perceptions, and the agency’s capacity to foster early-stage compliance rather than relying solely on deterrence.