r51due

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的paper代写范文- The goal of western antitrust law，供大家参考学习，这篇论文讨论了西方反垄断法的目标。任何法律都有其目的，而执行法律是为了达到一定目的而做出的一系列行为和措施。反垄断政策的目标是一个既简单又复杂的问题，在不同的国家，不同的时期其目标往往不同，同一个国家在同一个时期，其竞争政策的目标也不是单一的。而西方反垄断法的首要目标，就是提高经济效率，或者更确切地说是资源配置效率，从而保护消费者的权益。

Any law has a purpose, and the enforcement of law is a series of actions and measures to achieve a certain purpose. The goal of antimonopoly law for the formulation and implementation of anti-monopoly law has decisive role, how to determine the content of the anti-monopoly law, when to apply the antimonopoly law, how to apply the antimonopoly law, how to implement, according to the goal of the antimonopoly law. In the absence of specific provisions in relevant laws, the specific behaviors of anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies can be guided by legal objectives, so as to ensure that anti-monopoly law enforcement conforms to the original intention of the policy. Nowadays, it is very important to study the aim of anti - monopoly law.

Actually, the antitrust policy goal is a simple and complex problems, in different countries, different period the goal often is different, the same country in the same period, its goal is not a single competition policy.

At present, many scholars believe that the primary goal of anti-monopoly law is to improve the economic efficiency, or rather, the efficiency of resource allocation. The measure of the efficiency of resource allocation is the total social welfare, that is, producer welfare plus consumer welfare. Economic welfare is the standard by which western economists measure the quality of an industry, including the total welfare of all organizations in the economic field. The total benefit is the consumer surplus plus the producer surplus. A consumer of the consumer surplus is he willing to pay the price for a particular goods and the goods should pay the price difference between actual, total consumer surplus is the sum of all the consumer surplus in society. A single producer surplus is the profit a producer makes from selling a product, and the total producer surplus is the total profit of all producers.

It can be seen that under other conditions, if the commodity price increases, the producer surplus will increase correspondingly and the consumer surplus will decrease accordingly. Economists have shown that when prices rise, the producer's surplus does not fully compensate for the consumer's losses. Therefore, when the commodity price is close to the monopoly price, the total surplus of the society is the lowest. And when the price of goods approaches the marginal cost, the total social surplus is the highest.

American Chicago school first proposed the idea, they according to on the theory of new classical economics, increase the social total welfare is the only goal of competition policy and antitrust law, in the Chicago school point of view, the behavior of a vendor may make consumer welfare to drop, but producers welfare increase amplitude is higher than the consumer welfare reducing amplitude, make the increase of total social welfare. In this way, although the interests of consumers have been lost, the act does not belong to the competition policy should be opposed, and it is legal.

But if you think about it a little bit more, you'll see that this assumption of total social welfare can only be based on static conditions, and it's not always true if you put it in a dynamic environment. If competition authorities using power to fix prices near the marginal cost, while it reached the highest point total social welfare, but because of the investment in the industry to become unprofitable, investors could be greatly reduced in the future, these conditions can be expected in the future the social total welfare not raised is decreased, and the quality of products and services will also decline. For these reasons, some scholars have suggested that the antitrust laws are not as a tool to improve gross national wealth, increase the efficiency of resource allocation is never the antitrust laws norm, also is not the precondition of the anti-monopoly law enforcement, economic efficiency is merely a byproduct of antitrust.

There are also many arguments that the primary goal of the new law is to protect consumers. For example, the post-chicago school believes that anti-monopoly competition policy should take the primary goal of preventing monopoly manufacturers from transferring consumer welfare to monopolistic welfare, rather than improving the efficiency of resource allocation. If manufacturers rely on their own monopoly power push up prices, can achieve wealth transfer, although in the process, the wealth of the whole society may actually increased, but it led to the redistribution of social wealth, makes the strong more rich, the weak poorer eventually threaten social stability.

From the perspective of national legislation, consumer welfare should be considered when formulating competition policy and anti-monopoly law. In the European Union, as prescribed in article 81 of the ec treaty any joint action, or if the contract can promote production efficiency, promote the progress of science and technology or the development of economy, at the same time, allow consumers to share the achievements of this, so this kind of behavior or the contract is legal. The eu's merger rules also define "consumer interest" as an effective defence of consolidation in the form of legal principles. But the directive on vertical limits stresses that the protection of competition is the primary objective of eu competition policy, which will enhance the welfare of consumers and create effective ways to allocate resources. The new U.S. merger guidelines also say law enforcement will consider whether a merger can stop a merger from harming consumers' potential in the relevant markets, such as the city's markets, by preventing prices from rising.

Article 2 of the Australian trade practices act directly provides that the purpose of this act is to improve the welfare of Australia by promoting competition and fair trade and protecting consumers. According to the Italian competition authority, the main purpose of the Italian competition law enacted by the congress is to cultivate and protect market conditions, that is, to allow enterprises to have equal opportunities to compete and enter the market. The purpose of protecting consumers is to realize low price and improve product quality through the function of market forces. Japan "ban law" also rules designed to prevent the excessive concentration of economic power, ruled out because the joint, protocols, and other methods of production, sales, price, technology and other aspects of the unfair restrictions, promote fair and free competition, stimulate the entrepreneurs' creativity, prosperous economy, improve the level of employment and national real income level, to ensure that the general interests of consumers and promote democracy, healthy development of national economy.

It is undeniable that the anti-monopoly law is ultimately beneficial to consumers and should also target the interests and welfare of consumers. However, the author thinks that if the protection of consumers' interests is the ultimate goal of competition policy, then the public nature of competition policy is misunderstood. Of course, the public interest should be considered in competition policy, but the public interest is not equal to the consumer interest. Although we all belong to the consumer society, but people in society is not only consumers, they have to work, but also the production, sales and service, so they also is a producer and provider. If competition policy is based on the overall economy and the public interest of the society, it cannot favor consumers. Historically, in practice, monopolies have tended to drive down prices and consumer returns. Standard oil company in the late 19th century was a monopoly, but because of its scale effect and innovation mechanism, make the price of oil from 30 cents a gallon in 1869, to less than 6 cents per gallon by 1897. The American tobacco company was recognized as a "monopoly" in 1911, but it made cigarettes 2 per thousand from 1895. Seventy-seven dollars, down to two per thousand in 1911.

This is mainly the proposition of some lawmakers in the early implementation of anti-monopoly law. The first antitrust law, the Sherman act, was largely based on complaints from farmers and small business owners against big trusts. Both the Clayton act of 1914 and the Robinson - patman act of 1936 were intended to protect small businesses. In approving the Clayton act and the federal trade commission act, the President of the United States, 'Mr. Wilson says the law is the common aim "can make people who operate in small way and the success" as free as a big businessmen. Robinson and partman's law protects small businesses from getting the same discount as big wholesalers, and is clearly protecting small businesses from efficient competitors. It was not until 1950, when the United States enacted the sayler-kevorville act, that senator kevorville, the sponsor, said," Can we get the country into the hands of a few companies? ...... Shouldn't we protect small businesses that operate locally and are independent?"

Is protecting small business owners the goal of competition policy? Protecting competition in contemporary society does not mean protecting every competitor. Large chains are able to sell goods at lower prices, taking advantage of the size effect and their dominance in negotiating with suppliers. Small grocery stores cannot afford to sell at the same low price. In the end, small grocery stores will inevitably lose out in competition and eventually go bankrupt. It may seem unfair to small competitors, but fair to all consumers.

For the understanding of the competition, at present there are two concepts, namely static and dynamic competition theory, the static view of competition will compete as a real market for trading by two or more operators. Dynamic view based on the evolution of market competition, many people think the competition is not only a realistic market rivalry between activities, and there is a potential market entrants, the monopoly as the result of the competition to win, but it is also the cause of the new activity, and potential competition. By competitive mechanism, we mean dynamic competition.

The perfect competition mechanism can realize the reasonable allocation of resources and has the function of stimulating and innovating.

To achieve the rational allocation of social resources is one of the important functions of competition, in a market economy, the independent economic subject scattered on the production and consumption of economic decision-making, through the role of market price and the competition mechanism to coordinate with each other as a whole. The change of market price signal reflects the scarcity of the product, which shows that a certain degree of product requirements, under the competition of the economic subject for the pursuit of their own economic interests and the enormous pressure of market competition, will inevitably make flexible to the change of market price signals, timely response, adjust their production, the scale and structure. The results to ensure the production of the product and product structure constantly adapt to the demand and demand structure and demand and the demand structure changes caused by production and the product structure and will lead to a combination of factors of production, and resource advantage of changes in the way. In this way, the limited resources will eventually be used where they are most needed. No market price signals, will not be able to learn the scarcity of the product and structure to adapt to the requirements and if there is no competition force and pressure, will not make economic main body react accordingly, so that the production scale and structure to adapt to the changes in demand scale and structure. If there is no function of the price and the market competition mechanism, individual economic agents of production and consumption decision plan won't be able to coordinate with each other as a whole, the market economy will not run efficiently.

Economic entities are profit-oriented, and every participant in the market competition hopes to beat the competitors in the market and maintain a preferential profit over the competitors. According to the principle of marxist political economics, to obtain priority will make oneself of the lower cost profit, or to develop new products and new market, and this will stimulate the ongoing technological innovation and product innovation, in order to get an edge in the competition. But if in a monopolistic market where the competition mechanism fails, the monopolists can get preferential profits through their monopolistic position, they have no incentive to stimulate technological innovation.

In fact, the value of anti - monopoly law should finally be protected by the market mechanism. When the market is completely competitive, the resource allocation efficiency is the highest, the innovation ability is the strongest, and the total social welfare is the largest, and the consumer welfare is the biggest. As brandeis judge in 1958 in the northern Pacific railway company v. United States "a case said the verdict" is the premise of the Sherman act based on unlimited competitive interaction will produce the best economic resource allocation, the lowest price, best quality and the largest material progress. The resulting environment will help preserve our democratic political and social system.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创paper代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有essay代写、assignment代写、paper代写服务。

51due为留学生提供最好的paper代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多paper代写范文 提供作业代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。