This paper endeavours to analyse self regulation through the prism of the regulatory competition theorists. At first glance, self regulation and regulatory competition appear to be separate issues, each aimed at different objectives. Regulatory competition theory mainly deals with the issue of the level of regulation in a multilevel system of government; the self regulation debate is more concerned with the qualities and shortcomings of self regulation in comparison with public regulation. However, despite these differences, both debates purport to identify what is 'good' regulation. Both are concerned, albeit in different ways, with finding the most efficient level of regulation. These reasons explain why the idea of competing self regulations (re)surfaces in European debates. The idea emerges in particular in the areas where self regulation is governed by professional bodies (lawyers, doctors, architects, accountants etc.). During a conference devoted to modernising the regulation of professional services in Europe in October 2003, Commissioner Mario Monti encouraged the various professional bodies to reexamine their rules. « My intention », he said, «is not that the current regulatory framework should be changed overnight in a lump exercise. I am in favour of competition between legal systems (…) I am not aiming at harmonisation of all regulations, not at generalised deregulation.»