东盟反垄断法应仿效欧洲竞争政策吗?

Geoffrey A. Manne, Dirk Auer, Sam Bowman
{"title":"东盟反垄断法应仿效欧洲竞争政策吗?","authors":"Geoffrey A. Manne, Dirk Auer, Sam Bowman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3709730","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recent years have seen the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members embark upon various initiatives that seek to harmonize their competition regimes. These ongoing efforts to modernize and harmonize ASEAN competition laws take place amid a longstanding effort by both the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) to export their respective competition laws throughout the world. This raises a critical question: should the ASEAN countries attempt to mimic the competition regimes of other developed nations, notably those that are in force in the EU and the US? And, if so, which one of these regimes should they draw more inspiration from? This paper seeks to dispel the myth that the European model of competition enforcement would necessarily provide a superior blueprint. To the contrary, it shows that the evolutionary, common-law-like regime that has emerged in the US has many strengths that are often overlooked by contemporary competition policy scholarship, and which might provide a particularly good fit for the economic and political realities of the ASEAN member states. The paper proceeds as follows. Section  2 analyzes the high-level differences between the American and European approaches to competition policy. Section  3 shows that the US and Europe also differ substantially in terms of the conduct that may constitute an infringement of competition law — the EU system being significantly more restrictive. Section  4 turns to the thorny problem of digital platforms, in particular, and argues that while the European model might more readily facilitate intervention against digital platforms, the resulting cases may be detrimental to consumers and the economy more broadly. Section  5 posits that reducing economic concentration — sometimes cited as a byproduct of European-style competition enforcement — should not be a self-standing goal of antitrust policy. Finally, Section  6 argues that many of the economic and political characteristics of the ASEAN economy cut in favor of using the US model of competition enforcement as a blueprint for further development and harmonization of ASEAN competition law.","PeriodicalId":11797,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should ASEAN Antitrust Laws Emulate European Competition Policy?\",\"authors\":\"Geoffrey A. Manne, Dirk Auer, Sam Bowman\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3709730\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recent years have seen the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members embark upon various initiatives that seek to harmonize their competition regimes. These ongoing efforts to modernize and harmonize ASEAN competition laws take place amid a longstanding effort by both the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) to export their respective competition laws throughout the world. This raises a critical question: should the ASEAN countries attempt to mimic the competition regimes of other developed nations, notably those that are in force in the EU and the US? And, if so, which one of these regimes should they draw more inspiration from? This paper seeks to dispel the myth that the European model of competition enforcement would necessarily provide a superior blueprint. To the contrary, it shows that the evolutionary, common-law-like regime that has emerged in the US has many strengths that are often overlooked by contemporary competition policy scholarship, and which might provide a particularly good fit for the economic and political realities of the ASEAN member states. The paper proceeds as follows. Section  2 analyzes the high-level differences between the American and European approaches to competition policy. Section  3 shows that the US and Europe also differ substantially in terms of the conduct that may constitute an infringement of competition law — the EU system being significantly more restrictive. Section  4 turns to the thorny problem of digital platforms, in particular, and argues that while the European model might more readily facilitate intervention against digital platforms, the resulting cases may be detrimental to consumers and the economy more broadly. Section  5 posits that reducing economic concentration — sometimes cited as a byproduct of European-style competition enforcement — should not be a self-standing goal of antitrust policy. Finally, Section  6 argues that many of the economic and political characteristics of the ASEAN economy cut in favor of using the US model of competition enforcement as a blueprint for further development and harmonization of ASEAN competition law.\",\"PeriodicalId\":11797,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3709730\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Regulation (IO) (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3709730","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

近年来,东南亚国家联盟(ASEAN)成员国采取了各种旨在协调其竞争制度的倡议。这些正在进行的使东盟竞争法现代化和协调的努力是在欧洲联盟(EU)和美国(US)长期努力向全世界输出各自的竞争法的背景下进行的。这就提出了一个关键问题:东盟国家是否应该尝试模仿其他发达国家的竞争机制,尤其是欧盟和美国实施的竞争机制?如果是这样,他们应该从哪一个政权那里获得更多的灵感?本文试图消除欧洲竞争执法模式必然提供优越蓝图的神话。相反,它表明,在美国出现的渐进的、类似普通法的制度有许多优势,而这些优势往往被当代竞争政策学者所忽视,而且它可能特别适合东盟成员国的经济和政治现实。本文的工作如下。第二节分析了美国和欧洲在竞争政策方面的高层差异。第3节表明,美国和欧洲在可能构成违反竞争法的行为方面也存在很大差异——欧盟制度的限制要严格得多。第四节转向棘手的数字平台问题,并特别指出,尽管欧洲模式可能更容易促进对数字平台的干预,但由此产生的案件可能对消费者和更广泛的经济有害。第5节假定,降低经济集中度——有时被认为是欧洲式竞争执法的副产品——不应成为反垄断政策的独立目标。最后,第6节认为,东盟经济的许多经济和政治特征有利于使用美国的竞争执法模式作为东盟竞争法进一步发展和协调的蓝图。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Should ASEAN Antitrust Laws Emulate European Competition Policy?
Recent years have seen the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) members embark upon various initiatives that seek to harmonize their competition regimes. These ongoing efforts to modernize and harmonize ASEAN competition laws take place amid a longstanding effort by both the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) to export their respective competition laws throughout the world. This raises a critical question: should the ASEAN countries attempt to mimic the competition regimes of other developed nations, notably those that are in force in the EU and the US? And, if so, which one of these regimes should they draw more inspiration from? This paper seeks to dispel the myth that the European model of competition enforcement would necessarily provide a superior blueprint. To the contrary, it shows that the evolutionary, common-law-like regime that has emerged in the US has many strengths that are often overlooked by contemporary competition policy scholarship, and which might provide a particularly good fit for the economic and political realities of the ASEAN member states. The paper proceeds as follows. Section  2 analyzes the high-level differences between the American and European approaches to competition policy. Section  3 shows that the US and Europe also differ substantially in terms of the conduct that may constitute an infringement of competition law — the EU system being significantly more restrictive. Section  4 turns to the thorny problem of digital platforms, in particular, and argues that while the European model might more readily facilitate intervention against digital platforms, the resulting cases may be detrimental to consumers and the economy more broadly. Section  5 posits that reducing economic concentration — sometimes cited as a byproduct of European-style competition enforcement — should not be a self-standing goal of antitrust policy. Finally, Section  6 argues that many of the economic and political characteristics of the ASEAN economy cut in favor of using the US model of competition enforcement as a blueprint for further development and harmonization of ASEAN competition law.
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