Larry Catá Backer's comments on current issues in transnational law and policy. These essays focus on the constitution of regulatory communities (political, economic, and religious) as they manage their constituencies and the conflicts between them. The context is globalization. This is an academic field-free zone: expect to travel "without documents" through the sometimes strongly guarded boundaries of international relations, constitutional, international, comparative, and corporate law.
Tuesday, May 25, 2021
Angela Huyue Zhang "Chinese Antitrust Exceptionalism" (European Chinese Law Research Hub)
The folks over at the European Chinese Law Research Hub
(with thanks to Marianne von Blomberg, Editor ECLR Hub, Research
Associate, Chair for Chinese Legal Culture, University of Cologne) have
posted Angela Huyue Zhang's (director of the Center for Chinese Law and Associate Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong) Chinese Antitrust Exceptionalism.
She concludes:
Indeed, the Chinese government views antitrust law as a powerful multipurpose
tool not only for tackling monopolies, but also for achieving a wide
variety of policy objectives, such as maintaining price stability,
industrial planning, and trade and foreign policy. Thus, the absence
of checks and balances in Chinese antitrust enforcement, supposedly an
institutional weakness, could actually be a strength for Beijing as it
pushes tech giants and the country toward achieving technological
self-sufficiency.
In recent months, Chinese antitrust authorities have ramped up their
efforts to rein in Big Tech firms such as Alibaba, Ant Group, Meituan
and Tencent. These enforcement actions were all launched after Jack
Ma’s controversial speech
criticizing Chinese financial regulation last October. Many have
therefore speculated that there are political motivations behind China’s
crackdown on Big Tech. While Ma’s speech may have been the tipping point,
there have been long-standing economic, social, and industrial policy
issues that merit the government’s action. In fact, Beijing’s recent
efforts to strengthen antitrust regulation in the tech sector could
facilitate a larger goal of the Chinese government: to become a
technology superpower and achieve self-sufficiency, removing reliance on
the West.
In this regard, how China handles antitrust law offers it a distinct
competitive advantage, particularly compared with the U.S., which is
also grappling with how to handle tech giants. Even though efforts to
rein in companies such as Google and Facebook have
gathered momentum, the U.S. government has significantly less leverage
than China when it comes to antitrust law. Indeed, any U.S. legislative
changes will take years to enact, and existing antitrust cases brought
against Big Tech also face uphill battles in U.S. courts.
China shares some of the same concerns as the U.S. over increasing
market concentration in the tech sector. However, Chinese big tech
companies do not thrive because they develop innovative technologies.
Rather, they build smart apps that make it easier for consumers to
connect with merchants. Even though China has emerged at the forefront
of e-commerce and digital payment, Chinese Big Tech still owes its
success, to a large extent, to China’s vast consumer market.
Despite their sophisticated software development capabilities,
companies such as Tencent and Alibaba have yet to develop foundational
technologies. China’s fragility in technological innovation was clearly
exposed during the Sino-American trade war—the operations of national
champions such as ZTE and Huawei could be easily interrupted if the U.S.
government withheld the supply of key components such as
semiconductors.
China’s weakness in technological innovation explains Beijing’s
recent emphasis on achieving technological self-reliance and its desire
to push Chinese tech giants in this direction. Since China is the only
country apart from the U.S. to have Internet giants, these tech firms
are in a good position to develop digital technologies for the country.
In some ways, Chinese tech giants have responded to the government’s
call. Tencent has promised to invest $70 billion in new digital infrastructure. In 2019, Alibaba unveiled its first chip to power artificial intelligence. Baidu is betting heavily on driverless cars.
But Beijing wants more. Its intentions were clearly revealed in a recent editorial by the People’s Daily, a Communist Party mouthpiece,which
chided tech firms for investing in the “community group-buying” market.
The commentator instead urged Chinese Internet giants to forge ahead
with higher ambitions, such as advancing technological innovations to
clear China’s bottleneck in the intensive Sino-American rivalry, rather
than focusing on selling cabbages.
In the meantime, antitrust law enforcement gives Beijing significant
regulatory leverage to push its tech firms in the direction it desires.
Antitrust law grants the central government strong sanctioning powers,
allowing it to impose anything from astronomical monetary fines to
severe structural remedies. The Chinese antitrust regulator also
possesses vast administrative discretion while being subject to little
judicial oversight. Furthermore, Chinese antitrust law enforcement is
spearheaded by a central ministry that follows the central government’s
directives carefully.
As Chinese tech giants have amassed significant market power, they
have become vulnerable to antitrust regulatory attacks. And just as U.S.
and EU regulators are tightening their antitrust scrutiny over Big
Tech, the Chinese antitrust authority also has perfectly legitimate
reasons to do so. The regulatory vulnerability of Chinese Big Tech, in
turn, facilitates their cooperation with Beijing to help the latter
achieve its goals, be it in antitrust or other industrial policy
matters. Thus, Chinese Big Tech can and do align their business
development strategies with the government’s industrial policy as a form
of self-protection.
Indeed, the Chinese government views antitrust law as a powerful multipurpose
tool not only for tackling monopolies, but also for achieving a wide
variety of policy objectives, such as maintaining price stability,
industrial planning, and trade and foreign policy. Thus, the absence
of checks and balances in Chinese antitrust enforcement, supposedly an
institutional weakness, could actually be a strength for Beijing as it
pushes tech giants and the country toward achieving technological
self-sufficiency.
No comments:
Post a Comment