Abstract

Kenya’s business environment has been weakening over recent years and this has limited the private sector’s ability to grow, create jobs, and contribute to economic development. Competitive domestic markets are necessary to boost Kenya’s competitiveness. There are two pillars that sustain effective competition policy: (i) opening markets and removing anticompetitive regulation; and (ii) effectively enforcing competition law. The main focus of this report is the identification of regulations that could restrict competition and distort markets and business decisions, having a negative effect on Kenya’s competitiveness and growth. This report contains results from a review of the regulatory framework in key areas identified using Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's (OECD) Product Market Regulation (PMR) indicators, the World Bank Group’s framework to identify anticompetitive regulations, and interviews with stakeholders. This report is concerned only with certain regulations that affect market competition in select sectors and topical areas. The report stems from the policy dialogue with various Kenyan institutions, supported by the Kenya Investment Climate Program. This report contains three parts. Part one identifies restrictive regulations that affect the whole economy, while Part two focuses on select sectors. Part three provides policy recommendations to promote greater competition in Kenyan markets through the assessment and modification of regulations that create obstacles to competition. It also provides estimates of the potential benefits of reforming product market regulations.

Abstract

Transmission pipelines deliver natural gas to consumers around the world for the production of heat, electricity, and organic chemicals. In the United States, 2.56 million miles (4.12 million km) of pipelines carry natural gas to more than 75 million customers. With the benefits of pipelines come the risks to health and property posed by leaks and explosions. Proposals for new and recommissioned pipelines challenge host communities with uncertainty and difficult decisions about risk management. The appropriate community response depends on the risk level, the potential cost, and the prospect for compensation in the event of an incident. This article provides information on the risks and expected costs of pipeline leaks and explosions in the United States, including the incident rates, risk factors, and magnitude of harm. Although aggregated data on pipeline incidents are available, broadly inclusive data do not serve the needs of communities that must make critical decisions about hosting a pipeline for natural gas transmission. This article breaks down the data relevant to such communities and omits incidents that occurred offshore or as part of gas gathering or local distribution. The article then explains possible approaches to risk management relevant to communities, pipeline companies, and policymakers. Document type: Article

Abstract

Self-driving cars and self-driving technology are tested on public roads in several countries on a large scale. With this development not only technical, but also legal questions arise. This article will give a brief overview of the legal developments in multiple jurisdictions – California (USA), United Kingdom, and the Netherlands – and will highlight several legal questions regarding the testing and deployment of self-driving cars. Policymakers are confronted with the question how the testing of self-driving cars can be regulated. The discussed jurisdictions all choose a different approach. Different legal instruments – binding regulation, non-binding regulation, granting exemptions – are used to regulate the testing of self-driving cars. Are these instruments suitable for the objectives the jurisdictions want to achieve? As technology matures, self-driving cars will at some point become available to the general public. Regarding this post-testing phase, two pressing problems arise: how to deal with the absence of a human driver and how does this affect liability and insurance? The Vienna Convention on Road Traffic 1968 and the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic 1949, as well as national traffic laws, are based on the notion that only a human can drive a car. To what extent a different interpretation of the term ‘driver’ in traffic laws and international Conventions can accommodate the deployment of self-driving cars without a human driver present will be discussed in this article. When the self-driving car becomes reality, current liability regimes can fall short. Liability for car accidents might shift from the driver or owner to the manufacturer of the car. This could have a negative effect on the development of self-driving cars. In this context, it will also be discussed to what extent insurance can affect this development.

Abstract

Self-driving cars and self-driving technology are tested on public roads in several countries on a large scale. With this development not only technical, but also legal questions arise. This article will give a brief overview of the legal developments in multiple jurisdictions – California (USA), United Kingdom, and the Netherlands – and will highlight several legal questions regarding the testing and deployment of self-driving cars. Policymakers are confronted with the question how the testing of self-driving cars can be regulated. The discussed jurisdictions all choose a different approach. Different legal instruments – binding regulation, non-binding regulation, granting exemptions – are used to regulate the testing of self-driving cars. Are these instruments suitable for the objectives the jurisdictions want to achieve? As technology matures, self-driving cars will at some point become available to the general public. Regarding this post-testing phase, two pressing problems arise: how to deal with the absence of a human driver and how does this affect liability and insurance? The Vienna Convention on Road Traffic 1968 and the Geneva Convention on Road Traffic 1949, as well as national traffic laws, are based on the notion that only a human can drive a car. To what extent a different interpretation of the term ‘driver’ in traffic laws and international Conventions can accommodate the deployment of self-driving cars without a human driver present will be discussed in this article. When the self-driving car becomes reality, current liability regimes can fall short. Liability for car accidents might shift from the driver or owner to the manufacturer of the car. This could have a negative effect on the development of self-driving cars. In this context, it will also be discussed to what extent insurance can affect this development.