Suchergebnisse

Competition Policy in East Asia clarifies the key issues and provides a framework for understanding competition policy, looking in-depth at a number of regulated sectors for additional perspectives. Until two or three decades ago, competition and consumer protection policies were the preserve of the major developed economies like the United States, the United Kingdom and some European countries. Now competition issues are at the top of the international agenda as globalization spreads and as the operations of the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, the Asia Pacific Econom.

Competition policy and law, appropriately implemented and enforced, are essential to the optimal functioning of a market-orientated economy. International organizations, including the World Bank, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and regional groupings such as the European Union (EU), the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), all emphasize, to a greater or lesser extent, the need for a pro-competition policy to be adopted, to promote industrial efficiency and economic growth. The unspoken, but implicit, precondition for an effective competition policy is that the national government is ideologically committed to markets as the primary economic regulator, rather than to state-centred planning, or excessive public sector intervention to promote 'national champions'. For markets to function, there must be competition. The intriguing question is whether the Chinese authorities now accept this ideological position, and the need for a competition law to enhance domestic competition, after almost 30 years of economic reform. This brief will go on to explore the validity of the assertion that the adoption of a Chinese competition law, in present conditions, may be inappropriate, and might, in fact, impede the creation of a more economically efficient market.

The fundamental provisions of EU competition policy have remained virtually intact for sixty years, attesting to their flexibility and continued relevance. Their enforcement in particular focused on protecting the internal market and —in the case of antitrust and mergers— consumer welfare. They have also served the EU's wider policy goals; for example, they directly support several of the current Commission's top priorities such as jobs, growth and investment and the single market (including the digital single market and the energy union). Increasingly, research demonstrates the macroeconomic benefits of competition policy, such as productivity, growth, employment and inequality reduction.

Operating a complex competition policy, the EU intends to ensure undistorted competition within the Single Market. Today, with competition being increasingly necessary for Europe in order to combat the challenges of globalisation, the global crisis has shed light on some of the existing weaknesses in the system, especially regarding consumer welfare. In this article, the author brings to light the importance of implementing an economic approach to competition policy. This approach offers more consumer protection as well as giving businesses the opportunity to freely choose the most profitable commercial practices available to them.

How will competition policy develop in the 1990s? Michael Beesley, a part‐time member of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, explains how competition theory has developed and the likely consequences for policy.

Strategies to enhance Australia's international competitiveness need to embrace reform of key infrastructure service industries, reform of the regulatory environment, industrial relations reform and taxation reform. Key aspects of this reform agenda can only be addressed through a shared commitment by all levels of government. Ownership of the public utilities responsible for the nation's key infrastructure networks and services is divided among commonwealth, state and territory (and local) governments. Achieving a substantial lift in the productivity of these industries and ensuring the emergence of truly national infrastructure networks relies on agreement by all governments to public utility reform and the removal of barriers to cross‐border competition. Moreover, the regulation of industries, occupations and businesses is primarily the responsibility of state and territory governments, hence regulatory reform also requires a cooperative approach by all governments.While most jurisdictions have taken some steps to reform public utilities and to deregulate certain product markets, to date reform has been piecemeal. A more systematic approach to removal of impediments to competition across the board is likely to be necessary to lift the overall competitiveness of the Australian economy. The agreement by the commonwealth and all states and territories to implement the National Competition Policy (NCP) not only provides the necessary shared commitment to reform across the board, it also provides the rewards and sanctions needed to sustain that commitment in the face of certain resistance from vested interests.