隐性行政垄断及其法律规制研究

发布时间：2018-04-22 06:18

  本文选题：隐性行政垄断 + 法律规制　； 参考：《武汉大学》2015年博士论文

【摘要】：隐性行政垄断是行政机关或法律、法规授权的具有管理公共事务职能的组织等行政主体以不正当的经济援助、行政管制或其他行政手段优待、扶持或保护特定市场经营主体,阻碍、限制或扭曲市场竞争或存在阻碍、限制、扭曲市场竞争威胁,但法律、行政法规尚未禁止的行政行为。该行为在表现形式上不同于《反垄断法》等规制的行政垄断行为,具有隐蔽性特点。行政主体通过行政权力不正当优待、扶持和保护特定市场经营主体,受优待、扶持或保护的市场经营主体因而能够获得更多的市场交易机会和市场竞争优势,从而改变竞争者的竞争条件；并使竞争者之间的竞争蜕变为一种不公平竞争；这种不公平的市场竞争将使其他市场经营主体处于不利地位,并在市场竞争中落败而被迫退出市场竞争,而潜在竞争者也会因此放弃进入该市场领域的意愿,从而导致该领域的市场竞争减少,最终产生阻碍、限制竞争的后果。因而上述行为与《反垄断法》规制的行政垄断在本质上具有一致性。在当前我国经济转型时期,隐性行政垄断有三种常见表现类型：第一种是行政主体对特定市场经营主体进行不正当的经济援助行为。如无偿或低价向特定市场经营主体提供土地、矿产、频谱、航线等稀缺资源,给予赠款等财政补贴(助)和减免税、低利率融资贷款、核销亏损等经济优惠政策。这类行为直接给予特定经营者经济利益从而使其增强市场竞争力或保持其市场竞争优势。第二种是行政主体对特定市场经营主体给予不正当的市场进入、产品(服务)价格或数量等方面的行政管制保护的行为。国家对自然垄断行业和关系国民经济命脉、国家安全等市场领域进行市场准入、价格或数量等方面的行政管制的初衷是维护社会公共利益；但随着时代变迁、体制变革及科技进步,国家在这些领域的行政管制有的已偏离原来的初衷和目的,沦为受管制企业谋取市场垄断地位和垄断利润的工具,因而其正当性逐渐丧失。第三种是行政主体对特定市场经营主体的不正当行政扶持行为,属于间接给予特定市场经营主体经济利益。常见表现形式有：行政主体在行政管理上给予特定市场经营主体特殊待遇或法外特权；行政权力直接参与市场经营,如盐业、烟草政企合一的专营专卖制度、行政主体经商办企业、行政主体与特定市场经营者合作或合资从事营利性活动；行政主体强制特定市场经营主体兼并重组；行政主体协调特定市场经营主体采取统一市场行动等。上述隐性行政垄断行为具有广泛的社会危害性：(1)导致市场不公平竞争,妨碍市场自由竞争,使市场竞争机制难以有效运作,国企难以成为独立的市场经营主体,民营经济难以发展壮大,从而阻碍市场经济的健康发展。(2)使生产要素得不到有效使用,受隐性行政垄断扶助、保护的企业经营管理水平和经济效益普遍低下,从而导致经济效率损失。(3)使受益企业忽视改革创新的重要性,从而失去改革创新的动力和积极性、主动性,甚而阻碍改革创新。(4)引发权力寻租,而权力寻租导致社会资源浪费,社会总成本增加；受隐性行政垄断扶助和保护的企业向消费者提供价高质次的产品和服务,不合理地增加消费者的消费成本,从而损害社会整体福利和消费者利益。(5)滋生政府官员和企业管理人员腐败和奢侈浪费,引发社会不公,损害政府形象。(6)行政主体对特定市场经营主体实施不正当补贴和优惠政策等扶助、保护行为,违反了wT0的非歧视、公平竞争等原则和反补贴等协定,引发国际贸易摩擦和经济制裁,影响中国在国际贸易上的市场经济地位。针对隐性行政垄断存在的上述危害性,本研究提出了多主体、多途径的综合法律规制思路,即建立起以反行政垄断执法为主,地方政府层级监督和人民法院司法监督相互配合、相互制约的反行政垄断法律规制体系：(1)强化各级政府在规制隐性行政垄断方面的作用。由《反垄断法》明确规定各级政府负有通过抽象行政行为备案审查、行政复议等制度对隐性行政垄断行为进行事前、事中、事后层级监督的职责,从而强化各级政府在反隐性行政垄断方面的责任,防止地方政府在此方面无所作为。(2)强化人民法院在规制隐性行政垄断方面的作用。通过修改和完善《行政诉讼法》扩大行政诉讼的受理范围和审查权限,尽量将隐性行政垄断纳入行政诉讼制度的监督范围,以便更好地发挥人民法院通过司法程序规制隐性行政垄断的作用。(3)强化反行政垄断执法在规制隐性行政垄断方面的主导地位和作用。行政复议制度和人民法院行政诉讼制度对隐性行政垄断行为的监督是被动的,且监督范围和方式均具有较大的局限性；因此,规制隐性行政垄断应以反行政垄断执法为主,应通过对《反垄断法》修改和完善,构建起独立、权威、高效的反行政垄断执法机制,以适应反行政垄断执法工作的需要。一是在《反垄断法》中完善反行政垄断的立法目的、基本原则。即将维护社会公共利益和市场公平、自由竞争秩序规定为反行政垄断的立法目的；并将市场经济内在的效率价值确定为反行政垄断立法的基本原则,从而为区分隐性行政垄断确立法定的评判准则和标准。二是通过对行政垄断进行法律定义,以“不正当性”代替“滥用行政权力”作为行政垄断的构成要件或区分标准；扩大《反垄断法》规定的行政垄断范围,将隐性行政垄断纳入法律规制范围；在列举式规定中设定兜底条款并授予反行政垄断执法机构自由裁量权,以便对复杂多样的行政权力导致市场不公平竞争等其他间接排除、限制竞争行政行为是否构成行政垄断进行区分、确认。三是建立独立、权威、高效的反行政垄断执法机制。即建议《反垄断法》规定在国务院反垄断委员会下设单独的反行政垄断执法机构,实行垂直领导,承担反行政垄断执法任务；并通过《反垄断法》授予该执法机构调查权、强制权、裁量权、撤销权、制裁权等强有力的执法权力,以提高反行政垄断执法的权威性；完善反行政垄断立案、调查、处理和执行程序,强化对行政垄断违法行为主体的行政、民事和刑事法律责任追究机制,以增强反行政垄断执法的有效性。四是建立由反行政垄断执法机构对国家行政管制等国家垄断法律制度的正当性进行立法前和立法后评价的制度,从反行政垄断执法角度对不具有正当性的国家垄断行为进行法律监督；建立国家垄断的利害关系人对丧失正当性的国家垄断行为申请反行政垄断执法机构异议审查制度,为当事人对丧失正当性的国家垄断寻求法律救济提供正当有效的途径。(4)通过相关法律的配套完善和修改,使相关法律与《反垄断法》的精神保持一致,从而在规制行政垄断方面形成合力,并为反隐性行政垄断执法扫清障碍。一是完善宏观调控法、价格法、财税法等市场经济法。通过制定宏观调控法,为政府与市场划定界线,以减少行政主体对市场的不当干预,防止行政主体借宏观调控之名实施隐性行政垄断行为。完善价格法,增强价格管制行为的公正性和科学性,防止利益集团利用价格管制谋取暴利和坑害消费者。修改相关财税法律制度,以解决当前不合理的财政转移支付制度和财税体制引发的基层政府财政困难、事权和财权严重不匹配而促使行政主体滥施隐性行政垄断增加财政收入问题。二是完善和修改行政组织法、行政程序法、行政许可法等行政法。应尽快出台省、自治区、直辖市级政府的组织法和市、县、乡(镇)级政府的组织法及国务院各部门的组织法,将行政主体的职责权限尽量规定得具体明确,不留弹性地带。制定行政程序法,规范行政主体行政决策和行政执法程序,保证利害关系人在行政决策、行政执法程序中的正当权利。修改行政许可法,在有关行政许可设定范围的规定中体现十八届三中全会负面清单管理内容。通过上述法律规制措施,最终形成一个全覆盖、多层次、多途径和各执法主体分工明确、相互衔接和紧密配合的规制隐性行政垄断的法律机制和体系,实现行政主体及行政官员在严格监督之下的“不敢”和完善法律制度下的“不能”,从而达到有效规制隐性行政垄断的目的。
[Abstract]:The recessive administrative monopoly is an administrative organ or law. The administrative body, such as an organization that has the function of managing the public affairs, is given undue economic aid, administrative control or other administrative means, to support or protect the subject of a specific market, obstruct, restrict or distort the market competition, restrict and distort the competitive power of the market. The administrative act which is not prohibited by the law and administrative regulations. The act is different from the administrative monopoly of the anti monopoly law. It has the concealment characteristics. The administrative subject is undue to the administrative power to support and protect the main body of the specific market, which is favored, supported or protected by the market management body. Enough market trading opportunities and market competitive advantages to change the competitive conditions of competitors and make competition between competitors a kind of unfair competition; this unfair market competition will put other market operators at a disadvantage and are forced to withdraw from market competition when they are defeated in the market competition, The potential competitors will also give up the desire to enter the market, which leads to a reduction in the market competition in this field, and eventually a hindrance to the consequences of competition. Therefore, the above behavior is in essence consistent with the administrative monopoly regulated by the antitrust law. In the current period of economic transformation in China, there are three kinds of common administrative monopolies. Type of expression: the first is the improper economic aid behavior of the administrative subject to the specific market operating subject, such as providing land, mineral, spectrum, route and other scarce resources to the specific market operators without compensation or low price, giving grants and other financial subsidies (assistance) and tax relief, low interest rate financing loans, and cancellation of losses and other economic preferential policies. Such acts are directly given to the economic interests of specific operators so that they can enhance their market competitiveness or maintain their competitive advantage in the market. The second is the administrative management protection of the administrative subject to the specific market operating subjects, the price or quantity of the product (service). The market access of the national economy, the market areas of national security and other market areas, the original intention of the administrative control in terms of price or quantity, is to safeguard the social and public interests. However, with the changes of the times, the reform of the system and the progress of science and technology, the administrative control of the state in these fields has deviated from its original intention and purpose, and has been reduced to a controlled enterprise. The market monopoly status and the monopoly profit tool, thus its legitimacy gradually loses. The third kinds are the administrative main body to the specific market operation main body undue administrative support behavior, belongs to the specific market management main body economic benefit indirectly. Common forms are: the administrative subject gives the specific market management subject in the Administration. Special treatment or extrajudicial privilege; administrative power directly participates in the market operation, such as the salt industry, the monopoly of the monopoly system of tobacco government and enterprise, the administrative subject to business enterprises, the administrative subject and the specific market operators to cooperate or engage in for-profit activities; the administrative subject compels the specific market operation subject to merge and reorganize; the administrative subject is coordinated to the particular. The main body of market management takes unified market action. The above recessive administrative monopoly has widespread social harmfulness: (1) it causes unfair competition in the market, hinders the free competition of the market, makes the market competition mechanism difficult to operate effectively, the state-owned enterprises are difficult to become independent market operators, and the private economy is difficult to develop and grow, thus hindering the city. The healthy development of the field economy. (2) to make the factors of production not effective, under the support of the recessive administrative monopoly, the management level and the economic benefit of the protected enterprises are generally low, which leads to the loss of economic efficiency. (3) the benefit enterprises ignore the importance of reform and innovation, and lose the motivation and enthusiasm of reform and innovation, initiative and even resistance. Hindering reform and innovation. (4) it causes power rent-seeking, and power rent-seeking leads to the waste of social resources, and the total social cost increases; the enterprises which are supported and protected by the recessive administrative monopoly provide the products and services with high quality and quality to the consumers, unreasonably increase the consumer's consumption cost, and damage the overall welfare of the society and the interests of the consumers. (5) (5) Corruption and extravagance and waste of government officials and enterprise managers cause social injustice and damage the image of the government. (6) the administrative bodies carry out unfair subsidies and preferential policies on specific market operators, protect behavior, violate the non discrimination of wT0, fair competition and other principles and countervailing agreements, which lead to international trade frictions and economic system. In view of the harm to the market economy of China in international trade, in view of the above-mentioned harmfulness of the recessive administrative monopoly, this study puts forward a multi subject and multiple way of comprehensive legal regulation, that is to establish an anti administrative monopoly law enforcement, the local government level supervision and the judicial supervision of the Civil Law Institute are mutually complementary and mutually restrictive. The legal regulation system of political monopoly: (1) strengthening the role of the government at all levels in the regulation of the recessive administrative monopoly. The responsibility of the anti recessive administrative monopoly prevents the local government from doing nothing in this respect. (2) strengthening the role of the people's court in the regulation of the recessive administrative monopoly. By modifying and perfecting the administrative litigation law, expanding the scope and authority of the administrative litigation, the implicit administrative monopoly is tried to be included in the supervisory model of the administrative litigation system as far as possible. In order to better play the role of the people's court in regulating the recessive administrative monopoly through judicial procedure. (3) strengthening the dominant position and role of anti administrative monopoly law enforcement in the regulation of recessive administrative monopoly. The supervision of the administrative reconsideration system and the administrative litigation system of the people's court is passive and supervises the scope and side. Therefore, the regulation of recessive administrative monopoly should be based on anti administrative monopoly law enforcement, and the anti administrative monopoly law enforcement mechanism which is independent, authoritative and efficient should be constructed to adapt to the need of anti administrative monopoly law enforcement through the amendment and perfection of the antitrust law. The aim of the law is to safeguard the public interests and market equity, and the free competition order is defined as the legislative purpose of anti administrative monopoly, and the intrinsic efficiency value of the market economy is determined as the basic principle of anti administrative monopoly legislation, thus establishing the legal criteria and standards for distinguishing the recessive administrative monopoly. Two Administrative monopoly is defined as the legal definition of "unjustifiable" instead of "abuse of administrative power" as the constituent element or distinction standard of administrative monopoly; enlarging the scope of administrative monopoly stipulated in the antitrust law and incorporating the hidden administrative monopoly into the scope of legal regulation; setting the submission clause in the enumerated provisions and granting anti administrative monopoly law enforcement The institution has the right to discretionary, so as to distinguish the unfair competition of the market from the unfair competition of the complex and diverse administrative power, restrict the administrative monopoly of the competition, and confirm that three is the establishment of an independent, authoritative and efficient anti administrative monopoly law enforcement mechanism. Set up a separate anti administrative monopoly law enforcement agency, carry out vertical leadership, undertake anti administrative monopoly law enforcement task, and grant the law enforcement agency investigation power through < antitrust law > power, discretion, revocation right, sanction power and other powerful law enforcement power to improve the authority of anti administrative monopoly law enforcement; improve anti administrative monopoly filing, investigation, Process and implement procedures, strengthen the administrative monopoly of administrative monopoly, civil and criminal legal responsibility investigation mechanism to enhance the effectiveness of anti administrative monopoly law enforcement. Four is to establish a system of pre legislative and legislative evaluation of the legitimacy of the state monopoly law system by the anti administrative monopoly law enforcement agencies. From the angle of anti administrative monopoly law enforcement, the legal supervision of state monopoly behavior which is not justified is carried out, and the establishment of a state monopoly interested party to apply for the objection review system of the anti administrative monopoly law enforcement agency by applying for the state monopoly of the loss of justice, to provide the right for the parties to seek legal relief for the state monopoly of the loss of justice. (4) through the complete and modified relevant laws, the relevant laws and the spirit of the antitrust law are consistent, thus forming a joint force in the regulation of administrative monopoly and clearing obstacles for the anti recessive administrative monopoly law enforcement. One is to improve the macro regulation law, the price law, the financial and tax law and other market economic laws. To delimit the boundary between the government and the market in order to reduce the improper intervention of the administrative subject to the market, prevent the administrative subject from carrying out the recessive administrative monopoly in the name of macro regulation, improve the price law, enhance the fairness and scientificity of the price regulation, and prevent the interest groups from using the price management system to gain the profits and harm the consumers. The legal system is to solve the financial difficulties caused by the current unreasonable financial transfer payment system and the financial and tax system, and the serious mismatch between the power and the financial power. The two is to improve and amend the administrative law, the administrative procedure law, the administrative licensing law and so on. The organization law of provincial, autonomous region and municipal government and the organization law of municipal, county and township level government and the organization law of various departments of the State Council are promulgated as soon as possible. The responsibilities and powers of the administrative subject are defined as specific and clear as far as possible. The administrative procedure law is formulated, the administrative decisions and administrative law enforcement procedures of the administrative subjects are standardized, and the interests of the interests are guaranteed. The right of human being in administrative decision and administrative law enforcement procedure. To amend the administrative license law and to embody the content of negative list management in the provisions of the scope of administrative license setting in the third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee. Through the above-mentioned legal regulation measures, a full cover, multi-level, multi way and each law enforcement subject have a clear division of labor. Closely cooperating with the legal mechanism and system of recessive administrative monopoly, we can realize the "dare not" under the strict supervision by the administrative subject and the administrative officials and perfect the "cannot" under the legal system, so as to achieve the purpose of effectively regulating the recessive administrative monopoly.

【学位授予单位】：武汉大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.294
，

本文编号：1785972