메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
연구보고서
저자정보
저널정보
대외경제정책연구원 [KIEP] KIEP Opinions KIEP Opinions 제189권
발행연도
2020.6
수록면
0 - 0 (0page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The COVID-19 has threatened almost every sector with unwanted challenges and risks. Competition policies are no exception. Under pandemic situations, competition authorities should expedite antitrust procedures, monitor unfair practices exploiting emergency situations, allocate resources efficiently, and share their experiences through the international network of competition enforcers. However, given that the pandemic could make long term effects on our economy, more fundamental measures should be taken because we might not return to the pre COVID-19. Among others, the currently ongoing digitalization would be anticipated to accelerate and demand towards big governments strengthened while globalization more retreated to localization post pandemic. Responding to each of these challenges, competition authorities have to prepare and change in the new normal. They should exploit this crisis as an opportunity to preemp-tively upgrade their competition policies. To this end, more comprehensive but rigorous R&D on digital economy policies covering innovation-led economic growth as well as competition policy should be conducted. Competition authorities, when considering innovation factors in competition tests, should balance between ‘false positive’ (convicting the innocent) and ‘false negative’ (acquitting the guilty) to avoid chocking innovation and falling out of the digital competition. Plus, competition authorities should take more interests in researching and be prepared for examining the impacts of digitalization and the pandemic on labor markets, especially regarding the prevalence of ‘gig economy’ or platform labor. De-globalization post pandemic could reduce inward competition pressures from international markets and then urge competition authorities to engage in more highly concentrated domestic markets. However, active enforcement does not always mean aggressive intervention in the market, especially in the absence of evident anti-competitive effects proved. When a competition authority assesses anti-competition effects of a violation and/or formulates new regulations, the authority should be mindful and armed with antitrust toolkit boxes based on the market- and effect-based approach. Big government could be effective and helpful in saving a vulnerable group from the pandemic. Even so, big government should not justify excessive intervention at the expense of market competition and consumer welfare. A competition authority in charge of market competition should play a role of critical advisor to other government branches in the intra-governmental relationship on behalf of competitive private sectors for preserving competition and innovation in the market. To do so, the authority should monitor and refrain public sectors from excessively stepping in the market against market principles, particularly when the intervention is anti-competitive and harmful to consumers by suffocating innovation.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (0)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0