Case Centre resources

In 2019, India, like many countries around the world, was laying the groundwork for the deployment of 5G mobile telecom technology. 5G, with its high-speed, high-capacity and low-latency potential, was expected to transform the economy and society, with projections suggesting that it would create a cumulative economic impact of $1 trillion in India by 2035. The dominant vendor of 5G technology was China-based Huawei, which, in 2019, offered end-to-end solutions that were cheaper, faster and higher quality than its competition. But several intelligence agencies in the West suspected that Huawei would install ‘backdoors’ into its equipment to allow the Chinese government to conduct espionage activities.

India, with its longstanding security concerns vis-à-vis China, was faced with a dilemma: embrace costlier and slower 5G equipment from Huawei’s competitors, potentially setting back its economic targets for 5G, or develop ways to work with Huawei to address the security concerns. Huawei had been instrumental in allowing Indian telecom operators to rapidly expand access to previous-generation mobile and internet services in recent years. And while the US had banned the use of Huawei equipment across its public and private networks, and was strongly encouraging allied countries to do the same, other countries such as the UK had signalled a willingness to continue to do business with Huawei. With time of the essence, Indian Telecom Secretary Aruna Sundararajan had to advise the new government on the way forward.

In September 2019, the regulator Transport for London (TfL) was deliberating over the renewal of Uber’s operating licence. Since 2017, Uber had been in a precarious position in London, one of its largest markets, after TfL first decided not to renew its licence due to public safety concerns. Uber appealed and received a probationary licence, and now was awaiting a more permanent verdict. The licensing decision was just one flashpoint in an ongoing debate as numerous interest groups actively lobbied politicians and regulators over Uber’s position in London’s longstanding car-hire regulatory regime. The drivers of London’s iconic black cabs argued that TfL let Uber operate between the lines of the otherwise strictly regulated car-hire industry, giving Uber a competitive edge. But Uber – buoyed by its hundreds of thousands of loyal customers – asserted that the app enhanced competition, expanded customer choice and created jobs.

On 24 September 2019, TfL announced that it would give Uber a two-month extension as it reviewed additional information. TfL’s Commissioner Mike Brown now had two months to decide if TfL should grant Uber a licence. Meanwhile, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan – up for re-election in May 2020 – had to determine how to navigate the contentious debate.

This document is designed to help faculty develop case studies for schools of government and public policy. While cases are most commonly used in business education, they can be designed to suit the unique needs of public policy education. What makes public policy cases particularly distinctive is their focus on protagonists (ideally) acting in the public interest. Not only do these case protagonists tend to face broader, more ambiguous aims than their business counterparts, but they also function within more diffuse power structures and are accountable to a wider array of stakeholders. These distinguishing features inform how public policy cases are both written and taught. 

This document provides an overview of what public policy cases are, delineating them from more-familiar business school ones, and offers specific guidance on how to write public policy cases to help educate future government leaders.