The Constitutionality of Competition - EC Internal Market Law and the Fine Line between Markets, Public Interests and (Self-)Regulation in a Changing Constitutional Setting

2区 法学 Q1 Social Sciences
H. Vedder
{"title":"The Constitutionality of Competition - EC Internal Market Law and the Fine Line between Markets, Public Interests and (Self-)Regulation in a Changing Constitutional Setting","authors":"H. Vedder","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1282035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The EC and it's Member States struggle to draw the line between markets and public interests. Traditionally, these two are contrasted, most prominently by the continental Member States and followed by a conclusion that public interests require public governance. Some of this public governance takes the form of a public law framework within which self-regulation by the members of a profession occurs. We also see a more subtle version of self-regulation, whereby regulators are so dependent on specific information from the professions concerned, that they effectively become captive regulators. In those circumstances, the degree to which the public interest, rather than the interest of the professions concerned, is actually served may be doubted.This holds true even more where legislators, both at the EC and the Member State level, are moving the line between markets and public interests towards the market side. It is uniformly recognised that public governance is not the blanket solution for market failures and the introduction of market mechanisms may actually increase consumer welfare. The contrast between public interests and markets may therefore also be rephrased into a citizens versus consumers antithesis. EC (competition) law plays a prominent role in this debate in that it requires member state regulators to rethink how and to what extent their actions serve the public interest. This role of EC (competition) law requires a fundamental rethinking of the market (consumer) and public interest (citizen) antithesis. The hypothesis central to this paper is that EC (competition) law can serve as a democratic instrument to increase legitimacy whilst refining the line between markets and public interests.","PeriodicalId":51730,"journal":{"name":"Administrative Law Review","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Administrative Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1282035","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"法学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

The EC and it's Member States struggle to draw the line between markets and public interests. Traditionally, these two are contrasted, most prominently by the continental Member States and followed by a conclusion that public interests require public governance. Some of this public governance takes the form of a public law framework within which self-regulation by the members of a profession occurs. We also see a more subtle version of self-regulation, whereby regulators are so dependent on specific information from the professions concerned, that they effectively become captive regulators. In those circumstances, the degree to which the public interest, rather than the interest of the professions concerned, is actually served may be doubted.This holds true even more where legislators, both at the EC and the Member State level, are moving the line between markets and public interests towards the market side. It is uniformly recognised that public governance is not the blanket solution for market failures and the introduction of market mechanisms may actually increase consumer welfare. The contrast between public interests and markets may therefore also be rephrased into a citizens versus consumers antithesis. EC (competition) law plays a prominent role in this debate in that it requires member state regulators to rethink how and to what extent their actions serve the public interest. This role of EC (competition) law requires a fundamental rethinking of the market (consumer) and public interest (citizen) antithesis. The hypothesis central to this paper is that EC (competition) law can serve as a democratic instrument to increase legitimacy whilst refining the line between markets and public interests.
竞争的合宪性-欧共体内部市场法和在不断变化的宪法环境中市场、公共利益和(自我)监管之间的微妙界限
欧盟委员会及其成员国努力在市场和公共利益之间划清界限。传统上,这两者是比较的,最突出的是大陆会员国的对比,然后得出公共利益需要公共治理的结论。其中一些公共治理采取了公法框架的形式,在公法框架内,职业成员进行自我监管。我们还看到了一种更微妙的自我监管,即监管者如此依赖相关行业的具体信息,以至于他们实际上成为了被束缚的监管者。在这种情况下,公众利益,而不是有关专业的利益,在多大程度上得到了服务,可能是值得怀疑的。在欧共体和成员国层面的立法者将市场和公共利益之间的界限移向市场一方的情况下,情况更是如此。人们一致认为,公共治理不是解决市场失灵的万能办法,引入市场机制实际上可能会增加消费者福利。因此,公共利益与市场之间的对比也可能被重新表述为公民与消费者之间的对立。欧共体(竞争)法律在这场辩论中发挥着突出作用,因为它要求成员国监管机构重新思考他们的行为如何以及在多大程度上服务于公众利益。欧共体(竞争)法律的作用要求对市场(消费者)和公共利益(公民)的对立进行根本性的反思。本文的核心假设是,竞争法可以作为一种民主工具,在提高合法性的同时,理清市场与公共利益之间的界限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信