USEUROPEAFRICAASIA 中文雙語Fran?ais
    Home / World

    Price-rigging fines on foreign firms insufficient

    China Daily | Updated: 2013-01-09 07:23

    Policy | Mike Bastin

    For the first time, overseas companies have been fined for price fixing in the Chinese mainland market. This was the announcement made recently by the National Development and Reform Commission, China's top economic planning agency.

    Surely this is a momentous step toward modernization and full market economy status for China. But why, when the price rigging took place from 2001 to 2006, has it taken until 2013 for this judgment and punishment to be doled out? And why is the penalty of 144 million yuan ($23 million) a tiny fraction of the fines meted out for similar anti-competitive deeds in the United States and the European Union?

    The chief culprits are the South Korean global giants Samsung and LG who, together with four Taiwan producers of LCD display screens, have admitted to covert meetings between 2001 and 2006 in order to maintain artificially high prices. Each has now been ordered by the commission to pay 144 million yuan in fines and return 172 million yuan of extra payments to Chinese mainland buyers.

    These sums may appear hefty, but they pale in comparison to Microsoft's penalty of just over $1 billion for a similar abuse of market power. In particular, Samsung will be able to absorb such a financial penalty without the slightest adverse effect on its profit and loss statement or balance sheet.

    Price-rigging fines on foreign firms insufficient

    This rather tame monetary fine appears to result from the new anti-monopoly law passed in China in 2008. According to the legislation passed then, the precise financial amount to be levied is determined by, and equal to, the illegally gained revenue that resulted from any price manipulation. While this may appear logical, any closer look soon reveals a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation.

    First and foremost among the legislation's deficiencies is the lack of any regard to what the offending companies do with their immorally gained money.

    Surely some scrutiny must be given to the short- and long-term benefits that have resulted and may result from any investment of such funds. Once erected, barriers to market entry often become insurmountable and many often smaller competitors are shut out forever. Fraudulently gained investment which then enables such market concentration should not, therefore, simply equate to any consequent financial penalty.

    Regulators, and in this case the commission, need to go much further and if necessary totally re-jig any imbalance of market power that has resulted from anti-competitive behavior.

    In addition, simply repaying sums of money lost by industry competitors, suppliers and retailers may often not be sufficient to restore these companies to their former competitive position. Once again, it is the commission that should be prepared to go much further.

    However, some praise must still go to the commission for this landmark ruling and the positive signal it sends to many of the foreign corporate giants that continue to rely on the Chinese mainland more and more for enormous profits.

    This decision will also act as a much-needed fillip to many of China's emerging producers and service providers.

    The commission definitely got it partially right, but another cause for concern is the time it took to finally arrive at this judgment. Complaints from across the LCD panel industry and consumers date back as far as 2006.

    Covert price rigging and other forms of corporate collusion are inherently difficult to prove beyond doubt. But the commission needs to act much quicker if its work is really to be seen as a deterrent.

    In this case, and maybe many others, the NDRC appears to have simply reacted, and very slowly at that, to complaints. What is necessary is a culture change across the commission from this reactive approach to a far more aggressive pursuit of any form of anti-competitive behavior.

    This price-rigging case will go down in Chinese legal history, but it should also be seen as a catalyst for change toward even greater and more effective regulation across the Chinese mainland business environment.

    The author is a visiting professor at the University of International Business and Economics in Beijing and a researcher at Nottingham University's School of Contemporary Chinese Studies.

    (China Daily 01/09/2013 page16)

    Today's Top News

    Editor's picks

    Most Viewed

    Copyright 1995 - . All rights reserved. The content (including but not limited to text, photo, multimedia information, etc) published in this site belongs to China Daily Information Co (CDIC). Without written authorization from CDIC, such content shall not be republished or used in any form. Note: Browsers with 1024*768 or higher resolution are suggested for this site.
    License for publishing multimedia online 0108263

    Registration Number: 130349
    FOLLOW US
    中文字幕av一区| 永久免费av无码网站yy| www无码乱伦| 日韩精品无码专区免费播放| 亚洲国产精品无码中文字| 无码人妻精品中文字幕| 97久久精品无码一区二区天美| 最近中文字幕国语免费完整| 国产精品无码久久久久| 超清无码一区二区三区| 中文字幕亚洲欧美日韩2019| 天堂资源8中文最新版| 一二三四在线观看免费中文在线观看| 中文字幕日韩三级片| 日韩乱码人妻无码系列中文字幕| 日韩人妻无码一区二区三区久久99| 亚洲熟妇无码乱子AV电影| AV无码人妻中文字幕| 亚洲成?Ⅴ人在线观看无码| 制服中文字幕一区二区| 中文一国产一无码一日韩| 中文字幕无码第1页| 色多多国产中文字幕在线| 日韩精品无码一区二区三区不卡| 区三区激情福利综合中文字幕在线一区| 中文字幕人成高清视频| 亚洲Av无码乱码在线znlu| 狠狠躁天天躁中文字幕无码 | 国产日韩精品中文字无码| 国模无码人体一区二区 | 精品人妻va出轨中文字幕| 亚洲AV无码不卡在线观看下载| 免费无码成人AV在线播放不卡| 人妻精品久久久久中文字幕69 | 无码人妻一区二区三区在线水卜樱 | 久久综合一区二区无码| 91精品久久久久久无码| 国产精品99无码一区二区| 国产成人AV片无码免费| 97无码免费人妻超级碰碰夜夜| 精品久久久久久无码专区|