委托代理理论视角下的我国反垄断执法主体制度研究

Research on Law-executor system of Anti-monopoly of China in the view of Principal-agent Theory

传播影响力
本库下载频次:
本库浏览频次:
CNKI下载频次:0

作者:

张松健

导师:

陈亮

导师单位:

经济法学院

学位:

硕士

语种:

其他

关键词:

委托代理理论;公共利益规制理论;反垄断执法主体;制度研究

摘要:

我国现阶段的反垄断执法主体制度是公共利益规制理论的阐释和捍卫。公共利益规制理论以“政府良善、万能”为其主体预设,认为政府规制的原因在于市场失灵,政府规制的目的在于维护社会公共利益。在这一理论基础的指导下,我国反垄断执法主体制度之设计存在激励不足和监督乏力的弊端,体现在反垄断执法实践中,则是反垄断执法不力,电信、联通涉嫌价格垄断案件、六大银行统一收费标准和价格涉嫌价格垄断案等现象的出现便是明证。从本质上讲,反垄断执法主体不过是社会公众的代理人,他们与社会公众之间存在目标函数的差异,在激励不足和监督乏力的情况下,作为理性经济人的反垄断执法主体将违背委托人利益而追求自身利益最大化。因此,要从根本上改变我国反垄断执法不力的现状,比较理性的选择是以委托代理理论取代公共利益规制理论,用以指导我国反垄断法主体制度之设计。在委托代理理论指导之下,委托代理问题之克服是反垄断执法主体制度设计的题中之义,而反垄断执法主体之激励与约束将成为制度设计的重点。本文在反思我国反垄断执法主体制度理论基础与制度缺陷的基础上,以委托代理理论为指导,借鉴域外反垄断执法主体制度设计的成功经验,提出了完善我国反垄断执法主体制度的意见和建议。本文除引言为,共分为四个部分。引言,阐明了本文的选题背景、研究综述、研究目的与研究意义等。第一部分,我国反垄断执法主体制度的理论基础及其反思。我国反垄断执法主体制度是公共利益规制理论的阐释和捍卫,体现在规制目的、人性预设和政策建议三方面。这种制度设计因激励不足和监督乏力而导致实践中的反垄断执法不力。这一现象的理论根源则在于作为反垄断执法主体制度理论基础的公共利益规制理论的人性预设。公共利益规制理论以政府良善、万能为其主体预设,而制度设计上激励和约束的双重软化则是这一主体预设的题中之义。第二部分,我国反垄断执法主体制度理论基础的应然选择。委托代理理论以理性经济人为其主体预设,强调委托人与代理人目标函数的差异,重在防范信息不对称情况下代理人违背委托人利益而从事的道德风险和逆向选择等败德行为。从本质上讲,反垄断法执法主体不过是社会公众的代理人,他们与作为委托人的社会公众之间存在目标函数的差异。从委托代理理论视角看,我国反垄断执法主体制度存在委托人虚位、因代理链条过长而导致的信息不对称加剧以及代理人多元导致的责任不清等问题,从而加剧了代理人的逆向选择和道德风险等败德行为。第三部分,反垄断执法主体制度的域外考察。美日德三国的反垄断执法主体制度,分别从解决代理链条过长、代理人多元、监督乏力等几个方面进行制度设计,有效地防范了反垄断执法中的委托代理问题,为我国反垄断执法主体制度的设计提供了借鉴和参考。第四部分,我国反垄断执法主体制度的完善。本部分以委托代理理论为指导,以防范代理人的败德行为为重点,针对委托人虚位、代理人多元等问题,本文提出了引入公益诉讼、整合反垄断机构等法律建议,完善我国反垄断执法主体制度。

参考文献:

63

学科:

经济法学

提交日期

2019-04-11

引用参考

张松健. 委托代理理论视角下的我国反垄断执法主体制度研究[D]. 西南政法大学,2015.

全文附件授权许可

知识共享许可协议-署名

  • dc.title
  • 委托代理理论视角下的我国反垄断执法主体制度研究
  • dc.title
  • Research on Law-executor system of Anti-monopoly of China in the view of Principal-agent Theory
  • dc.contributor.schoolno
  • 20120301070769
  • dc.contributor.author
  • 张松健
  • dc.contributor.affiliation
  • 经济法学院(生态法学院)
  • dc.contributor.degree
  • 硕士
  • dc.contributor.childdegree
  • 法学硕士
  • dc.contributor.degreeConferringInstitution
  • 西南政法大学
  • dc.identifier.year
  • 2015
  • dc.contributor.advisor
  • 陈亮
  • dc.contributor.advisorAffiliation
  • 经济法学院
  • dc.language.iso
  • 其他
  • dc.subject
  • 委托代理理论;公共利益规制理论;反垄断执法主体;制度研究
  • dc.subject
  • Principal-agent Theory;Public Interest Theory of Regulation;Law-executor of Anti-monopoly;Research System
  • dc.description.abstract
  • 我国现阶段的反垄断执法主体制度是公共利益规制理论的阐释和捍卫。公共利益规制理论以“政府良善、万能”为其主体预设,认为政府规制的原因在于市场失灵,政府规制的目的在于维护社会公共利益。在这一理论基础的指导下,我国反垄断执法主体制度之设计存在激励不足和监督乏力的弊端,体现在反垄断执法实践中,则是反垄断执法不力,电信、联通涉嫌价格垄断案件、六大银行统一收费标准和价格涉嫌价格垄断案等现象的出现便是明证。从本质上讲,反垄断执法主体不过是社会公众的代理人,他们与社会公众之间存在目标函数的差异,在激励不足和监督乏力的情况下,作为理性经济人的反垄断执法主体将违背委托人利益而追求自身利益最大化。因此,要从根本上改变我国反垄断执法不力的现状,比较理性的选择是以委托代理理论取代公共利益规制理论,用以指导我国反垄断法主体制度之设计。在委托代理理论指导之下,委托代理问题之克服是反垄断执法主体制度设计的题中之义,而反垄断执法主体之激励与约束将成为制度设计的重点。本文在反思我国反垄断执法主体制度理论基础与制度缺陷的基础上,以委托代理理论为指导,借鉴域外反垄断执法主体制度设计的成功经验,提出了完善我国反垄断执法主体制度的意见和建议。本文除引言为,共分为四个部分。引言,阐明了本文的选题背景、研究综述、研究目的与研究意义等。第一部分,我国反垄断执法主体制度的理论基础及其反思。我国反垄断执法主体制度是公共利益规制理论的阐释和捍卫,体现在规制目的、人性预设和政策建议三方面。这种制度设计因激励不足和监督乏力而导致实践中的反垄断执法不力。这一现象的理论根源则在于作为反垄断执法主体制度理论基础的公共利益规制理论的人性预设。公共利益规制理论以政府良善、万能为其主体预设,而制度设计上激励和约束的双重软化则是这一主体预设的题中之义。第二部分,我国反垄断执法主体制度理论基础的应然选择。委托代理理论以理性经济人为其主体预设,强调委托人与代理人目标函数的差异,重在防范信息不对称情况下代理人违背委托人利益而从事的道德风险和逆向选择等败德行为。从本质上讲,反垄断法执法主体不过是社会公众的代理人,他们与作为委托人的社会公众之间存在目标函数的差异。从委托代理理论视角看,我国反垄断执法主体制度存在委托人虚位、因代理链条过长而导致的信息不对称加剧以及代理人多元导致的责任不清等问题,从而加剧了代理人的逆向选择和道德风险等败德行为。第三部分,反垄断执法主体制度的域外考察。美日德三国的反垄断执法主体制度,分别从解决代理链条过长、代理人多元、监督乏力等几个方面进行制度设计,有效地防范了反垄断执法中的委托代理问题,为我国反垄断执法主体制度的设计提供了借鉴和参考。第四部分,我国反垄断执法主体制度的完善。本部分以委托代理理论为指导,以防范代理人的败德行为为重点,针对委托人虚位、代理人多元等问题,本文提出了引入公益诉讼、整合反垄断机构等法律建议,完善我国反垄断执法主体制度。
  • dc.description.abstract
  • Law-executor system of Anti-monopoly of China is interpretation and defense of the public interest theory of regulation. The public interest theory of regulation thinks of the government as a man who is kind-heartened and can do every thing possible, which proposals that the reason of government regulation is market failure, and the purpose is protection of social public interest. Under the guidance of the theory, executor system of the Law-executor system of the Anti-monopoly of China has problems of the lack of incentives and weak supervision, which reflects weak enforcement in practices of Anti-monopoly Law enforcement, for example “the case of alleged price fixing of China Telecom and China Unicom”, “the case of alleged price fixing of six bank”. Essentially, China’s law-executor of the Anti-monopoly is just the agent of Anti-monopoly enforcement powers for all the public. There is a difference of objective function between agents and the public. Under the situation of lack of incentives and weak supervision, Law-executor who is rational and economic will violate the interest of principal and pursue the utility maximization. Therefore, in order to fundamentally change the status quo lax enforcement of Anti-monopoly Law, rational choice is to substitute principal-agent theory for public interest theory of regulation. Under the guidance of principal-agent theory, the overcoming problem of principal-agent theory is the core of subject of law-executor system of the Anti-monopoly, and incentives and supervision are key points of system. The paper is based on the reflection on the main theoretical basis and institutional deficiencies of executor system of the Anti-monopoly Law of China, is under the guidance principal-agent theory, and is proposed to improve observations and recommendations of the system by the successful experience of extraterritorial system. In addition to the introduction, this paper is divided into four parts. Introduction: to clarify the paper’s background, review research’s purpose, research’s value and so on. The first part: the theoretical basis and reflection of law-executor system of the Anti-monopoly law of China. Law-executor system of the Anti-monopoly of China is interpretation and defense of the public interest theory of regulation. It is reflected in the regulatory purpose, humanity hypothesis and recommendations of policy in three areas. Due to insufficient incentives and weak supervision in practice, the system leads to lax enforcement of the Anti-monopoly Law. Theoretical root of this phenomenon lies in the humanity hypothesis public interest theory of regulation which is regarded as the theoretical basis of executor system of the law-executor system of Anti-monopoly. Public interest theory of regulation puts kindheartedness and almighty as its humanity hypothesis. So double soften incentives and constraints on the design of the system are the main questions of the system. The second part: the theoretical basis’ choice of law-executor system of the Anti-monopoly. Principal-agent theory’s humanity hypothesis is “rational and economic man”. The theory underlines the differences of the objective function between principal and agent, and focuses on prevention agents engaging in moral hazard and adverse contrary to the interests of clients under asymmetric information. Essentially, law-executor system of the Anti-monopoly is just the agent of Anti-monopoly enforcement powers for all the public. There is a difference of objective function between agents and the public. From the perspective of the principal-agent theory, law-executor system of the Anti-monopoly of China has some problems, for example virtual spaces of principal, unclear responsibilities and other principal-agent problem because the proxy chain is too long and exacerbated by information asymmetry .These problems also exacerbate the reverse proxy selection and moral hazard. The third part: the study of extraterritorial law-executor system of the Anti-monopoly. Respectively, United States, Japan, and Germany of Law-executor system of the Anti-monopoly, are to solve the problems of the long agency chain, multiple agents, weak supervision and some other aspects. These ways can provide some reference for law-executor system of the Anti-monopoly of China. The fourth part: improving executor system of the law-executor system of the Anti-monopoly. Under the guidance of principal-agent theory and in order to prevent moral hazard which is the key, such as principal-agent virtual spaces, multiple agents problem and so on, the paper mentions legal suggestions to improve law-executor system of the Anti-monopoly of China, for example the introduction of public interest litigation, the integration of functions, and so on.
  • dc.subject.discipline
  • D
  • dc.date.issued
  • 2026-03-25
  • dc.date.oralDefense
  • 2015-05-16
  • dc.relation.citedreferences
  • 63
  • dc.relation.relatedpublications
  • 目 录引言 1 一、我国反垄断执法主体制度的理论基础及其反思 7 (一)公共利益规制理论的含义 7 (二)公共利益规制理论的主要特色 8 (三)我国反垄断执法主体制度是公共利益规制理论的阐释和捍卫 9 (四)公共利益规制理论视角下我国反垄断执法主体制度的缺陷 10 二、我国反垄断执法主体制度理论基础的应然选择 12 (一)委托代理理论内涵解读 13 (二)我国反垄断执法中的委托代理关系分析 18 (三)我国反垄断执法委托代理关系的主要特征 22 三、国外解决反垄断执法委托代理问题的制度设计 26 (一)解决代理链条过长问题的美国反垄断执法主体制度 26 (二)解决代理人多元问题的日本反垄断执法主体制度 30 (三)解决监督乏力问题的德国反垄断执法主体制度 31 (四)国外解决委托代理问题的启示 34 四、我国反垄断执法主体制度的完善 37 (一)整合反垄断机构,解决代理人多元问题 37 (二)完善执法人员激励机制,保证执法主体的积极性 39 (三)完善信息公开制度,解决信息不对称问题 39 (四)引入公益诉讼制度,解决初始委托人拟制和缺位问题 40 五、结语 43 参考文献 44 致 谢 48
回到顶部