Change Means More Choices,Not Less

True change does not mean less choices, Competition raises through regulatory practices.

Perhaps the biggest victim of the present govt is the regulatory environment. Since this interim govt has an apolitical look, bureaucracy responsible for operations of regulatory bodies does not feel urge to function them. Regulatory bodies continued routine work during political govt. Even that is somehow stopped. Consumers are paying the price. Regime change is supposed to bring more options to consumers, giving them some comfort.

Yet experience so far is completely opposite. Let me share some personal experiences. Recent earthquake exposed once again that the mobile internet is terribly slow in the country.Except one leading operator,all the operators provide slow internet since January 10,2024. I desperately contacted in vain BTRC earlier to improve the service of mobile internet. Product prices have gone up,but speed is terribly slow. As I tried to post my situation at home on that frightening day, I found how slow the thing is. They however offered me free minutes to call the dear ones later. Meanwhile ,operators blame the govt for taxing them too much: Tk22-28 [goes] to govt for every Tk 100 spent on mobile phone services, the operators claim. Till July this year, there was some sort of public hearing at BTRC,even that is stopped. The biggest inaction is seen from the Bangladesh Competition Commission(BCC). It seems to stop functioning.

The dairy products of the local shops are overwhelmingly dominated by two brands: a govt-backed cooperative and an NGO-run subsidiary. [Govt-run] cooperative is still there because money can be appropriated without any accountability and a trade-union like atmosphere exists. The NGO-run subsidiary is there because they have other businesses in the neighborhood: Mobile Financial Services (MFS), microcredit business. These allow them to influence the local business environment and the supply chain. Microcredit agencies do not pay taxes. But the dairy brand does pay taxes.

This is where we badly need intervention of BCC. Those who are involved in credit/capital management businesses should not engage in any other business at all. In the USA, we do not see Citibank has a food subsidiary, tech company or an university. Even if it does have any,it should not possess a significant market share in the respective industry. Most of these subsidiaries control more than 50% market share at home. As the winter arrived, to my surprise, I found that only butter brand available at the local shop is that of NGO-run subsidiary. I do not have any issues with the brand. But I want more options. More choices mean more competition, low price, better quality. That is not happening around me.

Sometimes regulatory body feels awkward when top military bureaucrat's dear one,some advisors have lucrative professional engagement with NGO-run subsidiary.

Point is BCC does not need to wait for any complaint, it can intervene immediately whenever it sees capture of significant market share by a company, violating competition and consumer rights.

Consumers are paying the price from their pockets. Last year a tyre factory owned by a former ruling party MP witnessed vandalization. The tyre brand went out of the business, hiking the prices of tyres in the local market. The void is still not filled.

Another businessman cum politician,now in jail, owns a pharmaceutical company with global reputation and it had easy access to all the neighborhoods when Awami League was in power. Now some of its medicines are no more at the local market. Some of them are cheap and good in quality. So patients are forced to purchase the costly options.

The issues here are: first,it is indeed bad idea to finance lucrative businesses of politically exposed individual. Beximco's acquisition of GlaxoSmithkline operations here could have been stopped at the first place. It is a serious regulatory failure. Second, in the change of events ,regulatory body's intervention is needed to smooth operation of the troubled companies so that consumers do not get hurt and competition prevails.

Another business group currently under scrutiny for plundering a bank and laundering money abroad, is attempting to promote a new food brand. At one hand, authority remained mum when it plundered a bank. On the other, authority allows it to venture upon new businesses while taking a complete opposite stance against other groups with opposite creed. This kind of double standard should be avoided. Govt needs to mull about greater good of the consumer and business environment and its subsequent business should reflect it.

Competition and consumer rights are always less prioritized issues for any govt. By fixing the two , we could fix many issues including the political ones. Unfortunately regulatory bodies take a hit instead of becoming more active during the interim govt. I highlighted here before in many pieces(See"Growing Unease:Revenue & Inflation" published here on December 06,2024), companies and institutions that have capacity to mobilize resources at the ground and have political aspirations should be subject of intense scrutiny and regulations*. Somehow conflict of interest and inaction of bureaucracy hold back the regulatory body to function properly. Competition at the market cannot be ensured unless the regulatory bodies do the routine work regularly. I think the constitution and the Parliament should empower the bodies so that a fair play ground prevails for all and consumers can get more choices. Any true change means more choices,not less!

[*Update: this piece is updated by me on November 25,2025 at 9:10 AM Bangladesh Standard Time. Update includes reference to seeking regulations on institutions that have huge capital and political aspirations.]