Home Is Where The Heart Dwells

Competition Law in China:The Proposed Anti-Monopoly Statute
May 23, 2006/9:30 am - Noon /Harvard Law School
Main Presentation: Professor Wang Xiaoye
Professor of Law and Director of the Economic Law Department, Institute of Law, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; visiting at Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2005-2006

Discussants
Professor Gary H. Jefferson:Carl Marks Professor of International Trade and Finance, and Chair of the Economics Department, Brandeis University
Professor David J. Gerber:Distinguished Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Program in International and Comparative Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law
Professor Sungjoon Cho:Assistant Professor of Law, Chicago-Kent College of Law

Workshop Convenor: Professor William P. Alford

Henry L. Stimson Professor of Law
Vice Dean for the Graduate Program and International Legal Studies
Director of East Asian Legal Studies

This morning Professor Wang Xiaoye, a CASS scholar and the principle advisor of government in anti-trust law, gave a speech in East Asia Legal Study Center with three US professors on Chinese anti-trust legislation.

With fluent English, Professor Wang discussed with other professors as well as audiance the policy concerns and her reading of the latest draft. Over all her opinions were quite liberal. She reckoned the market standard as legal criteria for regulation. In other words, she fully embraced the idea that regulation power should be applied only when the market needs. However, she also admitted that the anti-trust laws, which the liberalists hated most, hardly contributed to breaking the administrative monopoly.

Professor Jefferson evaluated the importance of the legislation as 5 in a 0-10 spectrum. His major argument was that Chinese companies are far from an optimistic scale. There were other concerns he mentioned that migh also underscore the importance, such as the governmental ownership and Chinese companies’ inability in IP competition, which is another form of monopoly but legal.

Professor Gerber’s reading of the legislation was critical. Having noticed several open-ended clauses in the draft, he generalized them as a “socialist market” or “Chinese uniqueness” issue. (I left for a while and did not have a full picture of his comments. )

Professor Cho talked about his observation from the perspective of trade. Ironically, although China was pushed by the US and WTO to facilitate more or less foreign companies’ competence, China did so on her own initiative in the name of fighting back mutinational companies (at lease as an offcial position).

After their discussion, Professor Alford opened the forum to the audience. Demacracy issue was raised by a Chinese LL.M student. Wang replied that this law in the long run definately would facilitate political democracy. I asked whether a fair reading of the anti-administrative-monoply clause (article 6 of the latest draft) would impede the price-fixing of taxi companies in Beijing. Wang expressed a pessimistice view about it. Professor Shen insightfully commented the current legislation fitted to the traditional model of dual-track regime, which reminded me painfully that there is still nothing new under the sun.