ABSTRACT
Commission officials had always seen the development of the SEAM as a process, even though, at the outset, they were unsure precisely what would be its outcome. They knew it would take time to change embedded positions that underpinned the old system and had few illusions about the strength of the regulatory conservatives or the vigour with which they would defend their enormous vested interests against the threat posed by liberalization. Furthermore, they also knew that the process would not be straightforward. It would not simply be a matter of formulaic changes. The modest liberalization achievements of the first two packages quickly brought a series of issues into sharp focus that would have important bearings on whether or not competition would actually flourish even after the old regulatory constraints were dismantled. These issues needed creative tending to devise suitable policies for dealing with them. Deregulation, tantamount to a laissez-faire system, had never been the intention of European reformers. Instead, they wanted to remove regulations that inhibited competition and replace them with others that would nurture competition, but not to the extent of excluding consideration of public service obligations, or of ignoring either the interests of organized labour or environmental, social and welfare issues.
