Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The Chinese competition model is primarily distinguished by its Chinese characteristics: a baseline that closely resembles US/EU law and an overlay of 'state over market' to do what is strategically good for China. Replying to Wendy Ng's suggestion that the Chinese competition model might be usefully exported to developing countries, this article disagrees. The Chinese law does have some outstanding characteristics, and developing countries might need a state/market balance different from the laissez-faire West. But a more appropriate alternative vision for developing democracies is the state as enabler of the market rather than the state as controller of the market, along with emphasis on the inclusiveness value in controlling the power of the giant corporations.

This article explains the strong connection between markets and democracy through the window of antitrust law. It elaborates on the links by highlighting moments and examples of symbiosis in the United States, in the European Union, and in transitional and developing countries.Observing the rising tide of illiberal government action that threatens the core of democracy, the article argues for a heightened awareness of the importance of markets and the economic law (antitrust) that protects them and the people from misuses of power.

The author tells the tale of her journey to discover the synergy between equity and efficiency.

The U.S. law of monopolization and the EU law of abuse of dominance share some common ground. The projects for convergence, however, have tended to obscure some basic differences. Each set of laws grows from its own roots and lives in its own "house" of institutions and value sets. Convergence is more apparent at the agency level, while distinctiveness is unmistakable at the level of the highest court of each jurisdiction. More than twenty-five years ago, there was a significant gap at the high court level between the U.S. and the EU law governing dominance. Over this quarter century, EU law has moved toward more appreciation of outcome-focused economics while preserving other Community perspectives, values, and objectives. Nonetheless, perhaps surprisingly, the size of the gap remains approximately the same, due to the significant movement of U.S. law in the direction of nonintervention. This article identifies precisely the points of divergence, in the interests of knowledge and awareness, while supporting the projects of convergence, in the interests of nurturing a sympathy of systems.