Abstract

Administrative enforcement of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law is shared among three ministries, and a pan-ministry commission sits above these ministries to coordinate competition policy. This two-tiered tripartite enforcement structure has been criticized as inefficient, costly, and ineffective. In particular, commentators are concerned that the agencies’ lack of independence will lead to the consideration of non-competition matters in competition enforcement. However, there has been minimal research done on how these institutional arrangements limit the independence of the Chinese competition agencies and whether and how this has actually impacted the enforcement of the Anti-Monopoly Law. This article addresses this gap by investigating whether a lack of independence has affected competition enforcement in China. By looking at the concept of agency independence, this article argues that, in addition to the constraints on independence that arise from the competition agencies’ positions as ministries within the executive branch, their independence is also limited by the conventions, coordination mechanisms, and relationships that exist within China’s socialist system. Applying this broader, multidimensional concept of independence to understand the enforcement experience of the AntiMonopoly Law, the article finds that the limitations placed on the independence of the competition agencies have shaped enforcement processes and outcomes.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.