No description available.

Chinas first comprehensive competition law, the Anti-monopoly law of the People’s Republic of China (AML), was enacted on August 1, 2008. Despite a long history of planned economy, the Chinese economy has developed into one of the fastest growing economies in the world during the last decades. The adoption of the law was a crucial step towards a more market-based economy. Article 1 of the AML states that one of the aims to achieve with this law is to develop a socialist market economy. The notion was founded in the 1990s and can be found in several other Chinese legislations. The concept has no prominent definition and can be interpreted in many different ways, which opens up for the ruling Party to interpret the notion in accordance with their political believes. The central government will probably put most emphasize on the word “socialist” instead of “market economy” when interpreting the concept. The concept is of central meaning and will affect the interpretation of the other aims stated in article 1. The other aims are not ranked in any hierarchical order and are in conflict with each other. The central government will give priority to the aims which are beneficial for a socialist society. The aim to promote public interest, which includes state owned enterprises, will be strongly favored. Also the aim economic efficiency will be prioritized since China strives to become a rich country. Consumer welfare will not be highlighted but might be more important in the future. One reason that the aims are vague and not put in any hierarchical order could be that the objectives for adopting AML were not solely of competition reasons. The objectives show that AML is part of a wider economic policy. Neither does the central government strive towards a free market. Instead the goal is to establish a fair market. A fair market will most probably be a market beneficial for state owned enterprises and can therefore be contradictory to the keystones of competition. Competition principals arise from sophisticated market economies and China aims to apply those principals in the light of socialist ideology. AML covers the general competition provisions but with a specific chapter to regulate administrative monopolies. It can still be seen as contradictory to prohibit administrative monopolies but without any sanctions stipulated for violation of the provisions. Also the fundamental elements for establish effective competition are missing. The statute cannot be seen as objective or provide legal certainty and the competition authorities do not have divided responsibilities. Neither is any specific competition court established. Other factors that can contribute to an inefficient competition law are China’s history and culture, affected by socialist ideology. Time is required in China in order to develop an efficient competition culture. Altogether, it is no coincident that the notion of socialist market economy is undefined. The notion includes a quest to enhance the socialist society with strong economic development. More specific guidance is determined by the central government when the right time has come. From a Chinese perspective, the aims in article 1 will be achieved since the undefined concepts open up for different interpretations. From a sophisticated point of view, the aims will not be seen as achieved since no effective competition is established.

<p>Chinas first comprehensive competition law, the Anti-monopoly law of the People’s Republic of China (AML), was enacted on August 1, 2008. Despite a long history of planned economy, the Chinese economy has developed into one of the fastest growing economies in the world during the last decades. The adoption of the law was a crucial step towards a more market-based economy. Article 1 of the AML states that one of the aims to achieve with this law is to develop a socialist market economy. The notion was founded in the 1990s and can be found in several other Chinese legislations.</p><p>The concept has no prominent definition and can be interpreted in many different ways, which opens up for the ruling Party to interpret the notion in accordance with their political believes. The central government will probably put most emphasize on the word “socialist” instead of “market economy” when interpreting the concept. The concept is of central meaning and will affect the interpretation of the other aims stated in article 1. The other aims are not ranked in any hierarchical order and are in conflict with each other. The central government will give priority to the aims which are beneficial for a socialist society. The aim to promote public interest, which includes state owned enterprises, will be strongly favored. Also the aim economic efficiency will be prioritized since China strives to become a rich country. Consumer welfare will not be highlighted but might be more important in the future.</p><p>One reason that the aims are vague and not put in any hierarchical order could be that the objectives for adopting AML were not solely of competition reasons. The objectives show that AML is part of a wider economic policy. Neither does the central government strive towards a free market. Instead the goal is to establish a fair market. A fair market will most probably be a market beneficial for state owned enterprises and can therefore be contradictory to the keystones of competition. Competition principals arise from sophisticated market economies and China aims to apply those principals in the light of socialist ideology. AML covers the general competition provisions but with a specific chapter to regulate administrative monopolies. It can still be seen as contradictory to prohibit administrative monopolies but without any sanctions stipulated for violation of the provisions.</p><p>Also the fundamental elements for establish effective competition are missing. The statute cannot be seen as objective or provide legal certainty and the competition authorities do not have divided responsibilities. Neither is any specific competition court established. Other factors that can contribute to an inefficient competition law are China’s history and culture, affected by socialist ideology. Time is required in China in order to develop an efficient competition culture.</p><p>Altogether, it is no coincident that the notion of socialist market economy is undefined. The notion includes a quest to enhance the socialist society with strong economic development. More specific guidance is determined by the central government when the right time has come. From a Chinese perspective, the aims in article 1 will be achieved since the undefined concepts open up for different interpretations. From a sophisticated point of view, the aims will not be seen as achieved since no effective competition is established.</p>

This research constructs the theoretical framework through documentary analysis; it utilizes the approach of ¡§state and society relations¡¨ on the micro-level of the comparative politics, supplemented with the concept of ¡§corporatism¡¨. This research includes ¡§in-depth interview¡¨ and ¡§case study¡¨ to aim at examining two issues. While the Chinese government has been the central power, the enterprises are the key players in the businesses of modern China. When the private sector has prospered vigorously, the government faced increasing pressure from economic system reform. This indicates that the power of government will shift to the industry and trade association. This research finds that the trade association, deriving from ¡§top down¡¨ model, which can gain more self-Governance, is the successful case of transformation. Its character is that it neither seeks for power from the government during the transformation nor interest from the private sector, but, instead, serves for social welfare and receives more credibility from the public and better organizing autonomy. Since the south patrolling of Deng Xiaoping in 1992, the socialist market economy has been the goal China pursues. In 1998, the ninth session national representatives passed Decision of the structural reform of the State Council plan, and it pointed out ¡§establish a government administrative system with the Chinese characteristics and suitable to the socialist market economic system¡¨. In October 2003, the Third Plenary Session of the 16th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China passed Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Some Issues concerning the Improvement of the Socialist Market Economy . Obviously, in addition to the concept of open policy of the trade market, the policy on decentralization of governmental structural reform is in place. Those changes push the market mechanism to expand gradually, and accelerate the transformation of trade association. It makes the influence of trade association on industrial policy making grow. Particularly, Guangdong Province's economy opened early and also led the development of trade association. This research found that the system and development of trade association in Guangdong Province has exceeded that of the central government. ¡§Guangdong Food Profession Union¡¨ is one of the best examples. This research analyzes the development of food industry of both China and the Guangdong Province, in order to explain the relations among government, the business (market) and the society. Second, to analyze the development of trade association's of China and Guangdong Province to explain the formation of civil society. Third, using the case of ¡§Guangdong Food Profession Union¡¨ to study on its philosophy, institution and interest setting in order to map out the interaction among ¡§Guangdong Food Profession Union (GFPU)¡¨, government and business. Finally, it induces the relations among state, the market, the civil society. This research not only points out the similarities and differences between the study case and the general situation in China, but also classifies three kinds of trade association and within which the trade association of successful transformation might be called ¡§NGO with the Chinese characteristic¡¨. In brief, the social scope of trade association derived from ¡§top down¡¨ model, will de unavoidably deprived by the government. In the social scope formed by the trade association of successful transformation, the administrative authority is (Economic and Trade Commission) no longer in charge of them, but the ideology of Chinese Communist Party still exists. It was the ¡§civil society with the Chinese characteristic.¡¨

1978年中國大陸實行改革開放政策，造就中共30餘年來高度的經濟增長率，中共在1990年代中期確立社會主義市場經濟的發展體制，結合有中國特色的社會主義和西方的市場經濟體制，時至今日中共仍然在調整社會主義（國家）和市場經濟體制之間的權力關係，中共政府雖然接受市場經濟體制在資源配置的作用，但代表社會主義的中共政府，仍牢牢掌握對整體經濟的宏觀調控能力，但對於中共而言，更加複雜多變的政經環境以及融入世界經貿體系的因素，改變社會主義和市場經濟體制對於資源配置的作用程度。 本論文從1997年亞洲金融危機和2008年國際金融危機的爆發，造成中國大陸經濟發展的困境、提出的應對措施和發展目標的轉變，檢視中共使用宏觀經濟調控政策中，財政政策和貨幣政策的差異。另外在金融危機後，中共又是如何在堅持社會主義（國家）的控制能力，以及提昇市場經濟的作用程度之間，做出適當的調整，以配合宏觀經濟調控政策達成經濟增長、調整結構、促進改革等目標的平衡發展。