竞争法的目标

R. Ahdar
{"title":"竞争法的目标","authors":"R. Ahdar","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198855606.003.0003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Commerce Act 1986 expressly states its object is to promote “effective or workable competition.” This traditional Harvard School approach has been consistently assailed by big business interests in New Zealand, assisted by a phalanx of “down-under” Chicago School economists and lawyers. Chicagoans have had minor successes in terms of amendments to the principal Act, and some quite notable court victories, but the glittering prize, the overall objective of the Act, has remained unchanged. Chicago won several battles, but lost the war. A major amendment to the Act in 2001, promoted by a Labour government, recast its object to state that its purpose was “to promote competition in markets for the long-term benefit of consumers within New Zealand.” After a quiet period where nothing seemed to have changed, the most recent signs are that a mild preference for consumers is appearing. The chapter also examines the international competitiveness arguments of Michael Porter.","PeriodicalId":254374,"journal":{"name":"The Evolution of Competition Law in New Zealand","volume":"173 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Goals of Competition Law\",\"authors\":\"R. Ahdar\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198855606.003.0003\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Commerce Act 1986 expressly states its object is to promote “effective or workable competition.” This traditional Harvard School approach has been consistently assailed by big business interests in New Zealand, assisted by a phalanx of “down-under” Chicago School economists and lawyers. Chicagoans have had minor successes in terms of amendments to the principal Act, and some quite notable court victories, but the glittering prize, the overall objective of the Act, has remained unchanged. Chicago won several battles, but lost the war. A major amendment to the Act in 2001, promoted by a Labour government, recast its object to state that its purpose was “to promote competition in markets for the long-term benefit of consumers within New Zealand.” After a quiet period where nothing seemed to have changed, the most recent signs are that a mild preference for consumers is appearing. The chapter also examines the international competitiveness arguments of Michael Porter.\",\"PeriodicalId\":254374,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Evolution of Competition Law in New Zealand\",\"volume\":\"173 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Evolution of Competition Law in New Zealand\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198855606.003.0003\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Evolution of Competition Law in New Zealand","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198855606.003.0003","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

《1986年商业法案》明确指出,其目标是促进“有效或可行的竞争”。这种传统的哈佛学派方法一直受到新西兰大企业利益集团的抨击,并得到了一大批“底层”芝加哥学派经济学家和律师的支持。芝加哥人在修改主要法案方面取得了一些小小的成功,在法庭上也取得了一些相当显著的胜利,但最耀眼的奖品,即法案的总体目标,却没有改变。芝加哥赢得了几次战役,但输掉了整个战争。在工党政府的推动下,2001年对该法案进行了重大修订,将其目的改为“为了新西兰消费者的长期利益促进市场竞争”。在经历了一段似乎没有任何变化的平静时期后,最近的迹象表明,对消费者的温和偏好正在出现。本章还考察了迈克尔·波特的国际竞争力论点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Goals of Competition Law
The Commerce Act 1986 expressly states its object is to promote “effective or workable competition.” This traditional Harvard School approach has been consistently assailed by big business interests in New Zealand, assisted by a phalanx of “down-under” Chicago School economists and lawyers. Chicagoans have had minor successes in terms of amendments to the principal Act, and some quite notable court victories, but the glittering prize, the overall objective of the Act, has remained unchanged. Chicago won several battles, but lost the war. A major amendment to the Act in 2001, promoted by a Labour government, recast its object to state that its purpose was “to promote competition in markets for the long-term benefit of consumers within New Zealand.” After a quiet period where nothing seemed to have changed, the most recent signs are that a mild preference for consumers is appearing. The chapter also examines the international competitiveness arguments of Michael Porter.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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