中英美行业性行政垄断及其治理比较研究
|
摘要
行业性行政垄断及其治理问题是我国社会主义市场化过程中经济学研究前沿领域之一,也是我国政治体制改革和经济体制改革的焦点,研究行业性行政垄断及其治理措施具有较强的理论价值和现实意义。
本文旨在通过对中英美三个国家的行业性行政垄断问题进行详细的比较,分析三个国家历史上行业性行政垄断的存在性和差异性,弄清其存在的本质和根源;比较三个国家治理行业性行政垄断的措施和效果,为我国进一步治理行业性行政垄断提出建议。之所以选取英国和美国作为比较的对象,是因为发达国家的市场经济相对完善,法律体制十分健全,而且政府管制理论和实践都取得了一定的效果。本文所运用的研究方法包括资料分析方法和法规分析方法,定性分析方法和定量分析方法等。本文拟在三个方面可能有所创新:
第一、研究角度的创新。对于行政垄断,国外研究资料十分有限,而国内学术界对此研究虽然日益增多,但大多都是从行政垄断的概念、特征、成因、危害等角度提出反行政垄断,而从中外比较的角度对行业性行政垄断进行系统研究的则很少。
第二、研究内容的创新。通过从新的视角研究国内外行业性行政垄断问题,涉及国外行业性行政垄断存在与否,存在或不存在的根源所在,与我国行业性行政垄断的异同,并对我国行业性行政垄断的微观效率损失进行计算,以及国内外行业性行政垄断治理手段和效果的比较,总结了英美行业性行政垄断治理的经验和教训,得到几点启示。
第三、研究结论的创新。其一,进一步证明了发达国家存在行业性行政垄断,而且至今仍然在某些领域采取行政垄断的手段,行政垄断是普遍存在的;其二,只是由于发展水平和政治经济体制等因素,各国行政垄断的表现和程度存在差异。与发达国家相比,我国行政垄断更为复杂和严重,治理行政垄断的任务更加艰巨。其三,发达国家行业性行政垄断主要由政府管制所导致,并采取了相应的治理措施,取得了一定的效果,吸取他国的经验和教训,针对我国行业性行政垄断提出治理对策。
Professional administrative monopoly and its governance is one of the cutting-edge research in the field of China's socialist market-oriented process, also the focus of China's political system and economic reform, therefore, it has a strong theoretical value and practical significance to research professional administrative monopoly and its control measures.
This paper aims at revealing the nature of professional administrative monopoly, handling unreasonable professional administrative monopoly correctly through detailed analysis of the existence and differences of professional administrative monopoly in three countries-China、Britain and the United States, and giving suggestions on further governance of China's professional administrative monopoly by comparing control measures and effects on professional administrative monopoly among three countries. Both of Britain and America have relatively complete market economy and sound legal system. This paper used a variety of analysis methods including data analysis, analysis of laws and regulations, qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis.
In this paper, there may be three innovations through comparison:
First, the innovation of research viewpoint. At present, foreign study on administrative monopoly is very limited and domestic research about basic theory of administrative monopoly is increasing, but less of systematic study from the perspective of comparison on professional administrative monopoly among countries.
Second, the innovation of research contents. On the basic of the new perspective, the article included professional administrative monopoly exists or not in foreign, the root of the presence or absence and their similarities or differences ,as well as microscopic efficiency loss analysis of professional administrative monopoly in China and the comparison on control measures, summed up experience and lessons from these countries, finally, obtained some inspirations and provided the direction for governing professional administrative monopoly in China.
Third, the innovation of research conclusions. The one, further evidence of professional administrative monopoly in developed countries which still used administrative monopoly in some areas; the other, there are differences at performance in three countries because of the development level and political system. Compared with developed countries, China's administrative monopoly is more complicated and serious, its governance has become extremely hard; the last, government regulation caused professional administrative monopoly in developed countries, they have taken appropriate measures to control it and achieved some results, so it is necessary to learn from their experiences and lessons, and then put forward measures for our professional administrative monopoly.
本文旨在通过对中英美三个国家的行业性行政垄断问题进行详细的比较,分析三个国家历史上行业性行政垄断的存在性和差异性,弄清其存在的本质和根源;比较三个国家治理行业性行政垄断的措施和效果,为我国进一步治理行业性行政垄断提出建议。之所以选取英国和美国作为比较的对象,是因为发达国家的市场经济相对完善,法律体制十分健全,而且政府管制理论和实践都取得了一定的效果。本文所运用的研究方法包括资料分析方法和法规分析方法,定性分析方法和定量分析方法等。本文拟在三个方面可能有所创新:
第一、研究角度的创新。对于行政垄断,国外研究资料十分有限,而国内学术界对此研究虽然日益增多,但大多都是从行政垄断的概念、特征、成因、危害等角度提出反行政垄断,而从中外比较的角度对行业性行政垄断进行系统研究的则很少。
第二、研究内容的创新。通过从新的视角研究国内外行业性行政垄断问题,涉及国外行业性行政垄断存在与否,存在或不存在的根源所在,与我国行业性行政垄断的异同,并对我国行业性行政垄断的微观效率损失进行计算,以及国内外行业性行政垄断治理手段和效果的比较,总结了英美行业性行政垄断治理的经验和教训,得到几点启示。
第三、研究结论的创新。其一,进一步证明了发达国家存在行业性行政垄断,而且至今仍然在某些领域采取行政垄断的手段,行政垄断是普遍存在的;其二,只是由于发展水平和政治经济体制等因素,各国行政垄断的表现和程度存在差异。与发达国家相比,我国行政垄断更为复杂和严重,治理行政垄断的任务更加艰巨。其三,发达国家行业性行政垄断主要由政府管制所导致,并采取了相应的治理措施,取得了一定的效果,吸取他国的经验和教训,针对我国行业性行政垄断提出治理对策。
Professional administrative monopoly and its governance is one of the cutting-edge research in the field of China's socialist market-oriented process, also the focus of China's political system and economic reform, therefore, it has a strong theoretical value and practical significance to research professional administrative monopoly and its control measures.
This paper aims at revealing the nature of professional administrative monopoly, handling unreasonable professional administrative monopoly correctly through detailed analysis of the existence and differences of professional administrative monopoly in three countries-China、Britain and the United States, and giving suggestions on further governance of China's professional administrative monopoly by comparing control measures and effects on professional administrative monopoly among three countries. Both of Britain and America have relatively complete market economy and sound legal system. This paper used a variety of analysis methods including data analysis, analysis of laws and regulations, qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis.
In this paper, there may be three innovations through comparison:
First, the innovation of research viewpoint. At present, foreign study on administrative monopoly is very limited and domestic research about basic theory of administrative monopoly is increasing, but less of systematic study from the perspective of comparison on professional administrative monopoly among countries.
Second, the innovation of research contents. On the basic of the new perspective, the article included professional administrative monopoly exists or not in foreign, the root of the presence or absence and their similarities or differences ,as well as microscopic efficiency loss analysis of professional administrative monopoly in China and the comparison on control measures, summed up experience and lessons from these countries, finally, obtained some inspirations and provided the direction for governing professional administrative monopoly in China.
Third, the innovation of research conclusions. The one, further evidence of professional administrative monopoly in developed countries which still used administrative monopoly in some areas; the other, there are differences at performance in three countries because of the development level and political system. Compared with developed countries, China's administrative monopoly is more complicated and serious, its governance has become extremely hard; the last, government regulation caused professional administrative monopoly in developed countries, they have taken appropriate measures to control it and achieved some results, so it is necessary to learn from their experiences and lessons, and then put forward measures for our professional administrative monopoly.
引文
[1]AD.Neale&.D.G.Goyder,The Antitrust Laws of the U.S.A,Cambridge University Press,Third Edition,1980
[2]Berg,Sanford & John Tschirhart,Natural Monopoly Regulation:Principles and Practice,New York:Cambridge University Press,1988
[3]Christopher Pleatasikas,The Analysis of Market Definition and Market Power in the Context of Rapid Innovation.International Journal of Industrials Organization,2001
[4]D.Swann,The Retreat of the State:Deregulation and Privatization in the UK and US.Harvesters:Wheatsheaf,1988.8-9
[5]Hayek,F.A.,The Consitution of Liberty.New York,1982.84-85
[6]Jerry Elling,Dynamic competition and Public Policy,Technology,innovation and Antitrust Issues,Cambridge University Press,2001
[7]Parker.Brown:http://www.lawbooksusa.com
[8]Posner,Richare A.,Theories of Economic Regulation.Bell Journal of Economics and Management science,1974.336-337
[9]R·A·W·Rhodes.Governance and Public Administration.Govenance.Oxford University Press.1992.56-60
[10]Sam Peltzman:The Economic Theory of Regulation after a Decade of Deregulation,Microeconomics Volume,1989
[11]Stigler,George.J,Friedland,Claire.,What can regulators regulate? The Case of Electricity.Journal of Law and Economics,1962.1-6
[12]United Haulers Association,Inc.v.Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority,No.05-1345(April 30,2007)
[13]Wade,R.Governing the Market:Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization,Princeton:Princeton University Press,1991
[14]Waterson,M.Regulation of the Firm and Natural Monopoly,Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1988
[15]Viscusi,W.Kip,John M.Vemon,and Joseph E.Harrington.Economics of Regulation and Antitrust.Cambridge,MA:MIT Press,2000
[16]陈代云.产业组织与公共政策:管制抑或放松管制.外国经济与管理,2006.7-12
[17]陈富良.放松管制与强化管制.上海:上海三联书店,2001.8-9
[18]丹尼尔·史普博.管制与市场.上海:上海三联书店,1999.92-95
[19]国家工商行政管理总局公平交易局,中国社会科学院国际法学研究中心编著.反垄断典型案例及中国反垄断执法调查.法律出版社,2007
[20]《各国反垄断法汇编》 编写组.各国反垄断法汇编.北京:人民法院出版社,2001
[21]哈耶克.个人主义与经济秩序.北京:北京经济学院出版社,1989.98-99
[22]亨利·勒帕日.美国新自由主义经济学.李燕生译.北京大学出版社,1985.158-159
[23]胡汝银.竞争与垄断:社会主义微观经济分析.上海三联书店,1988.48-49
[24]刘戒骄.垄断产业改革--基于网络视角的分析.经济管理出版社,2005.61-62
[25]石淑华,行政垄断的经济学分析.社会科学文献出版社,2006.66-72
[26][美]施蒂格勒.产业组织和政府管制.上海:上海人民出版社,1996
[27]王俊豪.中国垄断性产业的结构重组、分类管制与协调政策.商务印书馆,2005
[28]王晓晔.反垄断立法热点问题.北京:社会科学出版社,2007.113-137
[29]杨兰品.中国行政垄断问题研究.经济科学出版社,2006.186-199
[30]于良春等.自然垄断与政府管制.北京:经济科学出版社,2003
[31]郑鹏程.行政垄断的法律控制研究.北京:北京大学出版社,2002
[32]赖进斌.当代中国行政垄断基本问题研究:[硕士学位论文].福州:福州大学经济法系,2006
[33]张先兵.行业性行政垄断及其治理研究:[硕士学位论文].北京:中国地质大学.2007
[34]陈立梅.美国电信业体制改革及其对我国的启示.中国新通信,2007(6):92-96
[35]陈爱贞.反垄断与经济管制:比较与互动关系分析.产业经济研究.2005(6):20-27
[36]过勇,胡鞍钢.行政垄断、寻租与腐败_转型经济的腐败机理分析.经济社会体制比较,2003(2)
[37]姜付秀,余晖.我国行政垄断的危害.中国工业经济,2007(10):71-77
[38]姜彦军.中外行政性垄断与反垄断立法比较研究.政法论坛,2002(3):79-86
[39]李鹏.美国电信管制改革及其启示.中国科技产业,2006(5):92-93
[40]李士英.市场进入壁垒、进入管制与中国产业的行政垄断.财经科学,2005(2):112
[41]林仲豪.美国行政垄断管制改革及其启示.经济学家.2008(1):108-112
[42]肖兴志.中国自然垄断产业管制改革模式研究.中国工业经济,2002(2):20-25
[43]王保树.论反垄断法对行政垄断的管制.中国社会科学院研究生报,1998(10)
[44]王俊豪.中国垄断性行业的行政垄断及其管制政策.中国工业经济,2007(12):30-37
[45]王俊豪.英国自然垄断产业企业所有制变革及其启示.财经论丛,2002(1):56-62
[46]王俊华.美国政府放松经济管制的趋势.中国青年政治学院学报,2002(3):97-102
[47]王学庆.垄断性行业的政府管制问题研究.管理世界,2003(8)
[48]杨兰品.试论行政垄断及其普遍性与特殊性.武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版).2005(6):801～807
[49]杨兰品,张秀生.试论发达国家的行政垄断及其启示.当代经济研究.2005(1):14～18
[50]杨舜贤,蔡晓珊.英国电信业放松管制研究及对我国的借鉴.特区经济.2008(7):98
[51]余东华,于华阳.反行政垄断与促进竞争政策新进展.中国工业经济.2008(2):141
[52]约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨.促进管制与竞争政策.数量经济技术经济研究,1999(10):51
[53]张红凤.西方政府规制理论变迁的内在逻辑及启示.教学与研究.2006(5):70～75
[54]张蕴萍.西方规制理论及其对我国的启示.理论学刊.2004(11):79～91
[55]郑汉军中外反行政垄断立法比较管制比较研究.江苏警官学院学报,2004(4):112
[2]Berg,Sanford & John Tschirhart,Natural Monopoly Regulation:Principles and Practice,New York:Cambridge University Press,1988
[3]Christopher Pleatasikas,The Analysis of Market Definition and Market Power in the Context of Rapid Innovation.International Journal of Industrials Organization,2001
[4]D.Swann,The Retreat of the State:Deregulation and Privatization in the UK and US.Harvesters:Wheatsheaf,1988.8-9
[5]Hayek,F.A.,The Consitution of Liberty.New York,1982.84-85
[6]Jerry Elling,Dynamic competition and Public Policy,Technology,innovation and Antitrust Issues,Cambridge University Press,2001
[7]Parker.Brown:http://www.lawbooksusa.com
[8]Posner,Richare A.,Theories of Economic Regulation.Bell Journal of Economics and Management science,1974.336-337
[9]R·A·W·Rhodes.Governance and Public Administration.Govenance.Oxford University Press.1992.56-60
[10]Sam Peltzman:The Economic Theory of Regulation after a Decade of Deregulation,Microeconomics Volume,1989
[11]Stigler,George.J,Friedland,Claire.,What can regulators regulate? The Case of Electricity.Journal of Law and Economics,1962.1-6
[12]United Haulers Association,Inc.v.Oneida-Herkimer Solid Waste Management Authority,No.05-1345(April 30,2007)
[13]Wade,R.Governing the Market:Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization,Princeton:Princeton University Press,1991
[14]Waterson,M.Regulation of the Firm and Natural Monopoly,Oxford:Basil Blackwell,1988
[15]Viscusi,W.Kip,John M.Vemon,and Joseph E.Harrington.Economics of Regulation and Antitrust.Cambridge,MA:MIT Press,2000
[16]陈代云.产业组织与公共政策:管制抑或放松管制.外国经济与管理,2006.7-12
[17]陈富良.放松管制与强化管制.上海:上海三联书店,2001.8-9
[18]丹尼尔·史普博.管制与市场.上海:上海三联书店,1999.92-95
[19]国家工商行政管理总局公平交易局,中国社会科学院国际法学研究中心编著.反垄断典型案例及中国反垄断执法调查.法律出版社,2007
[20]《各国反垄断法汇编》 编写组.各国反垄断法汇编.北京:人民法院出版社,2001
[21]哈耶克.个人主义与经济秩序.北京:北京经济学院出版社,1989.98-99
[22]亨利·勒帕日.美国新自由主义经济学.李燕生译.北京大学出版社,1985.158-159
[23]胡汝银.竞争与垄断:社会主义微观经济分析.上海三联书店,1988.48-49
[24]刘戒骄.垄断产业改革--基于网络视角的分析.经济管理出版社,2005.61-62
[25]石淑华,行政垄断的经济学分析.社会科学文献出版社,2006.66-72
[26][美]施蒂格勒.产业组织和政府管制.上海:上海人民出版社,1996
[27]王俊豪.中国垄断性产业的结构重组、分类管制与协调政策.商务印书馆,2005
[28]王晓晔.反垄断立法热点问题.北京:社会科学出版社,2007.113-137
[29]杨兰品.中国行政垄断问题研究.经济科学出版社,2006.186-199
[30]于良春等.自然垄断与政府管制.北京:经济科学出版社,2003
[31]郑鹏程.行政垄断的法律控制研究.北京:北京大学出版社,2002
[32]赖进斌.当代中国行政垄断基本问题研究:[硕士学位论文].福州:福州大学经济法系,2006
[33]张先兵.行业性行政垄断及其治理研究:[硕士学位论文].北京:中国地质大学.2007
[34]陈立梅.美国电信业体制改革及其对我国的启示.中国新通信,2007(6):92-96
[35]陈爱贞.反垄断与经济管制:比较与互动关系分析.产业经济研究.2005(6):20-27
[36]过勇,胡鞍钢.行政垄断、寻租与腐败_转型经济的腐败机理分析.经济社会体制比较,2003(2)
[37]姜付秀,余晖.我国行政垄断的危害.中国工业经济,2007(10):71-77
[38]姜彦军.中外行政性垄断与反垄断立法比较研究.政法论坛,2002(3):79-86
[39]李鹏.美国电信管制改革及其启示.中国科技产业,2006(5):92-93
[40]李士英.市场进入壁垒、进入管制与中国产业的行政垄断.财经科学,2005(2):112
[41]林仲豪.美国行政垄断管制改革及其启示.经济学家.2008(1):108-112
[42]肖兴志.中国自然垄断产业管制改革模式研究.中国工业经济,2002(2):20-25
[43]王保树.论反垄断法对行政垄断的管制.中国社会科学院研究生报,1998(10)
[44]王俊豪.中国垄断性行业的行政垄断及其管制政策.中国工业经济,2007(12):30-37
[45]王俊豪.英国自然垄断产业企业所有制变革及其启示.财经论丛,2002(1):56-62
[46]王俊华.美国政府放松经济管制的趋势.中国青年政治学院学报,2002(3):97-102
[47]王学庆.垄断性行业的政府管制问题研究.管理世界,2003(8)
[48]杨兰品.试论行政垄断及其普遍性与特殊性.武汉大学学报(哲学社会科学版).2005(6):801～807
[49]杨兰品,张秀生.试论发达国家的行政垄断及其启示.当代经济研究.2005(1):14～18
[50]杨舜贤,蔡晓珊.英国电信业放松管制研究及对我国的借鉴.特区经济.2008(7):98
[51]余东华,于华阳.反行政垄断与促进竞争政策新进展.中国工业经济.2008(2):141
[52]约瑟夫·斯蒂格利茨.促进管制与竞争政策.数量经济技术经济研究,1999(10):51
[53]张红凤.西方政府规制理论变迁的内在逻辑及启示.教学与研究.2006(5):70～75
[54]张蕴萍.西方规制理论及其对我国的启示.理论学刊.2004(11):79～91
[55]郑汉军中外反行政垄断立法比较管制比较研究.江苏警官学院学报,2004(4):112
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |