从中美反垄断法背景看政府在反垄断中的作用

发布时间：2018-06-24 10:57

本文选题：政府 + 反垄断　；参考：《山东大学》2012年硕士论文

【摘要】：20世纪80年代以来,中国市场经济迅速发展,市场竞争机制逐步建立和完善。随着市场竞争的不断加剧,中国国内市场逐渐出现了经济性垄断；随着经济全球化和对外开放程度的不断加深,大量跨国公司和外资企业进入中国,凭借其竞争优势在中国市场取得垄断地位；在网络经济条件下,垄断的形成机制和绩效的变化导致新型垄断的产生；转轨经济中,中国的行政垄断问题对市场竞争机制的破坏越来越严重。面对新的经济形势,为了保护市场竞争机制,政府需要在反垄断上有所作为。管制和反垄断立法是政府反垄断的两种主要方式。但由于信息不对称和管制俘获等原因,政府对垄断行业进行管制有时不仅不会弥补“市场失灵”,反而还会导致“政府失灵”。在政府管制低效率的情况下,越来越多的国家,特别是市场经济国家,一方面,逐渐放松政府管制,积极剥离自然垄断行业中的竞争环节；另一方面,寻求通过反垄断立法来对垄断行为进行规制。反垄断法逐渐成为当今各国政府对垄断进行规制的主要手段。1890年美国颁布的《谢尔曼法》是世界上第一部具有现代意义的反垄断法,对其它国家反垄断立法提供了很好的参考价值。而中国反垄断法刚颁布不久,政府缺乏反垄断执法经验。因此,从对比中美两国反垄断立法背景的角度来研究政府在反垄断中的作用,对中国政府反垄断具有很大的理论和实践意义。本文从反垄断立法的角度,通过对比《谢尔曼法》和中国反垄断法颁布前的社会经济背景、垄断形成过程与性质、利益群体立法博弈等方面的差异,来探讨中国政府在反垄断中的作用和目标取向。在反垄断立法的社会经济背景方面,中美两国具有相似的经济发展态势和产业结构；但与美国相比,中国经济的外贸依存度较高,说明中国经济的国际化程度较高,中国反垄断立法会受到国际宏观经济更多的影响；中国的市场经济主体具有多元性,包含国有企业、跨国公司和私有企业等；中国政府在市场经济体制形成过程中发挥更加重要的作用,市场经济体制改革是在政府主导下进行的；此外,中国反垄断立法还面临着经济全球化和网络经济的双重挑战。在垄断形成和性质方面,与美国相比,中国的行政性垄断比经济性垄断对市场竞争机制的破坏作用更严重,应该成为反垄断法的重点规制对象；中国经济性垄断已经形成,垄断形式表现为传统垄断、跨国垄断与网络经济条件下的新型垄断相互交织的特点。在利益群体立法博弈方面,与美国相比,中国各经济利益群体在反垄断立法过程中力量对比悬殊,弱势群体的利益表达渠道不畅通,消费者和普通民众的作用较小；中国政府在反垄断立法中扮演“裁判员”与“运动员”的双重角色。利益群体发展不均衡、利益表达渠道不畅通和政府的双重角色可能会使政府在反垄断立法与执法中的目标取向发生异化。在新的社会经济环境下,中国政府在反垄断立法与执法中要积极应对经济全球化和网络经济的挑战,需要通过不断完善反垄断法的内容和执法机构以及通过推进政治经济体制改革来重新界定政府在反垄断立法与执法中的角色与作用。
[Abstract]:Since 1980s, China's market economy has developed rapidly and the market competition mechanism has been gradually established and perfected. With the increasing competition of the market, the domestic market has gradually appeared economic monopoly. With the economic globalization and the deepening of the opening to the outside world, a large number of cross country and foreign enterprises have entered China with their competition. In the condition of network economy, the formation mechanism of monopoly and the change of performance lead to the emergence of new monopoly. In the transition economy, the problem of Chinese administrative monopoly is more and more serious to the market competition mechanism. In the face of the new economic situation, in order to protect the market competition mechanism, the government needs to be in the opposite direction. There are two main ways of monopolization. Regulation and antitrust legislation are the main ways of government antitrust. However, due to information asymmetry and control capture, the government's control of monopolies will not only make up for "market failure", but will also lead to "government failure". More and more in the case of low government regulation. On the one hand, the countries, especially the market economy countries, gradually relax the government regulation and actively peel off the competition links in the natural monopoly industries; on the other hand, seek to regulate the monopoly through antitrust legislation. The antitrust law has gradually become the main means of regulation of monopolies by governments in the United States in.1890. The Sherman law is the first antitrust law of modern significance in the world, which provides a good reference value for other countries' antitrust legislation. While China's antitrust law has just been promulgated, the government lacks the experience of antitrust law enforcement. Therefore, it studies the role of the government in antitrust from the perspective of the anti-monopoly legislation of China and the United States. It has great theoretical and practical significance to Chinese government's anti-monopoly.
From the angle of antitrust legislation, by comparing the social and economic background before the promulgation of Sherman law and China's antitrust law, the differences in the process and nature of the monopoly and the game of the interest groups, the role and goal orientation of the Chinese government in antitrust are discussed. In the social and economic background of the anti-monopoly legislation, China and the United States two China has similar economic development situation and industrial structure, but compared with the United States, China has a high degree of dependence on foreign trade, which indicates that China's economy is more internationalized and China's anti-monopoly legislature is more influenced by the international macro-economy; the main body of China's market economy is pluralistic, including state-owned enterprises, transnational corporations and private enterprises. There are enterprises and so on; the Chinese government plays a more important role in the process of the formation of the market economy system. The reform of the market economic system is carried out under the leadership of the government. In addition, China's anti-monopoly legislation also faces the dual challenges of economic globalization and network economy. In the form and nature of monopoly, China's administrative nature is compared with the United States. Monopoly has more serious damage to market competition mechanism than economic monopoly. It should be the key object of regulation of antitrust law; China's economic monopoly has been formed, monopoly forms are characterized by traditional monopoly, transnational monopoly and new monopoly under the condition of network economy interweave each other. Compared with China, China's economic interests groups in the process of anti-monopoly legislation in the process of strength contrast, disadvantaged groups of interest expression channels are not smooth, consumers and the ordinary people are less effective; the Chinese government plays the dual role of "referee" and "athlete" in antitrust legislation. In the new social and economic environment, the Chinese government should actively deal with the challenges of economic globalization and network economy in the anti-monopoly legislation and law enforcement, and need to pass through the content and law enforcement machine that perfected the anti-monopoly law. It also redefines the role and role of the government in anti monopoly legislation and law enforcement by promoting the reform of the political and economic system.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D971.2;D922.294

【参考文献】