Competition in certain market sectors (eg. such as airlines, taxis, postal services, utilities, etc.) should be tightly controlled by the government.

Finding the right balance between free market and regulation has been a matter of political debate since the dawn of capitalism. However, in tough times such as economic crises, lawmakers tend to opt for the extremities: either taking total control or letting go entirely. In my opinion, moderate control over certain sectors is the path that is most likely to lead to prosperity for both customers and businesses.

Any business school student will tell you that the free market always does better than the goverment. And while that is definitely true for profitability, customer satisfaction may not always benefit from the lack of regulation. Taxis are a great example of this. Without some regulation, the locally oligopolistic companies have little to no incentives to improve their services. Just a few years ago, a smoking taxi driver was more common than credit card payment or air conditioning in a cab. The Taxi Act of Budapest (with some, and not total regulation) quickly changed all that.

On the other end of the spectrum are government-owned, monopolistic giants, such as the Post. Sluggish service provided by unmotivated employees at a high price make waiting in line at the Post office one of the most dreadful errands. A national corporation in many European countries, the postal sector is crying out for deregulation. Just the threat of EU directives liberalizing the postal service market had the staff of the Hungarian Post quickly jumping to their feet, experimenting with what they believed were costumer-friendly innovations like selling candy bars on the spot. Well... it’s a step.

All in all, I believe the job of regulators is to provide a framework that allows for fair competition and to