2013•Journal of Public Administration and Policy ResearchOpen access

On the legal system construction of Chinas administrative monopoly proceedings

Jin SUN

Open full text 0 citations

Abstract

The implementation of China's "anti-monopoly law" in 2008 was no doubt a powerful needle for China's market economy, but it was just a gesture of the Chinese Government. Between the top-down model which was advanced by the Government, and the bottom-up model which was pushed by social forces, which one was the better choice as the leading force in the implementation of law enforcement? Perhaps, the combination of private and public implementation was the best model. However, in the process of regulating administrative monopoly, no matter how sophisticated the government decentralized design of the system of checks and balances, it seemed so feeble to solve the contradiction which the actor of monopolistic behavior was the one being regulated at the same time. The absence of litigation system which regulated administrative monopoly behavior in "anti-monopoly law" made this law a simple piece of declaration which was so-called the constitution of market economy. It cannot protect the rights of subjects in the market economy, and it also had no practical significance. The right without relief procedure was not the real right. Therefore, it had positive meaning to put administrative monopoly behaviors into the scope of regulatory proceedings and construct the dual model of anti-administrative monopoly. Key words: Administrative monopoly, suability, dual regulation, the mode of litigation, triple compensation for damage.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The implementation of China's "anti-monopoly law" in 2008 was no doubt a powerful needle for China's market economy, but it was just a gesture of the Chinese Government. Between the top-down model which was advanced by the Government, and the bottom-up model which was pushed by social forces, which one was the better choice as the leading force in the implementation of law enforcement? Perhaps, the combination of private and public implementation was the best model. However, in the process of regulating administrative monopoly, no matter how sophisticated the government decentralized design of the system of checks and balances, it seemed so feeble to solve the contradiction which the actor of monopolistic behavior was the one being regulated at the same time. The absence of litigation system which regulated administrative monopoly behavior in "anti-monopoly law" made this law a simple piece of declaration which was so-called the constitution of market economy. It cannot protect the rights of subjects in the market economy, and it also had no practical significance. The right without relief procedure was not the real right. Therefore, it had positive meaning to put administrative monopoly behaviors into the scope of regulatory proceedings and construct the dual model of anti-administrative monopoly. Key words: Administrative monopoly, suability, dual regulation, the mode of litigation, triple compensation for damage.

Why it matters

A significance statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The implementation of China's "anti-monopoly law" in 2008 was no doubt a powerful needle for China's market economy, but it was just a gesture of the Chinese Government. Between the top-down model which was advanced by the Government, and the bottom-up model which was pushed by social forces, which one was the better choice as the leading force in the implementation of law enforcement? Perhaps, the combination of private and public implementation was the best model. However, in the process of regulating administrative monopoly, no matter how sophisticated the government decentralized design of the system of checks and balances, it seemed so feeble to solve the contradiction which the actor of monopolistic behavior was the one being regulated at the same time. The absence of litigation system which regulated administrative monopoly behavior in "anti-monopoly law" made this law a simple piece of declaration which was so-called the constitution of market economy. It cannot protect the rights of subjects in the market economy, and it also had no practical significance. The right without relief procedure was not the real right. Therefore, it had positive meaning to put administrative monopoly behaviors into the scope of regulatory proceedings and construct the dual model of anti-administrative monopoly. Key words: Administrative monopoly, suability, dual regulation, the mode of litigation, triple compensation for damage.

Key concepts: Monopoly, Monopolistic competition, Natural monopoly, Economics, Law and economics, Constitution, Contradiction, Government (linguistics)

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
On the legal system construction of Chinas administrative monopoly proceedings — Research Paper | ScholarLens