Blog Post

China’s catching up on competition policy enforcement

Foreign business is increasingly realising that China has antitrust laws, and is not too shy to use them. The Glencore/Xstrata merger in the spring was cleared only with conditions imposed by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM). In August, the Chinese National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) imposed a record €82 million fine on milk powder producers for a price-fixing conspiracy. The Chinese authorities are also taking more decisions. They issued only one in 2008, compared to 34 European Commission decisions concerning mergers that were not cleared unconditionally, abuse of market dominance and major cartel cases. In 2012, the figures were 16 for China and 23 for Europe.

By: Date: November 2, 2013 Topic: Innovation & Competition Policy

Policy Contribution ‘The Dragon awakes: Is Chinese competition policy a cause for concern?

Foreign business is increasingly realising that China has antitrust laws, and is not too shy to use them. The Glencore/Xstrata merger in the spring was cleared only with conditions imposed by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM). In August, the Chinese National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) imposed a record €82 million fine on milk powder producers for a price-fixing conspiracy. The Chinese authorities are also taking more decisions. They issued only one in 2008, compared to 34 European Commission decisions concerning mergers that were not cleared unconditionally, abuse of market dominance and major cartel cases. In 2012, the figures were 16 for China and 23 for Europe.

For foreign investors, this raises the question of whether more robust Chinese antitrust enforcement is not simply a way for China to promote its domestic industries at the expense of foreign competitors. An analysis of the data shows that they might be half right.

China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (AML), adopted in 2007, is largely compatible with the European competition policy framework. The AML however gives Chinese authorities the power to include industrial policy considerations in their case assessments, and the authorities have duly used this power in merger decisions. However, the same does not seem to hold for antitrust control.

Like in Europe, most merger applications received by MOFCOM are cleared with no conditions. But MOFCOM has blocked one merger and required commitments in 20 others. Those mergers all share one peculiarity: they all involved foreign companies. This is surprising. The rate of merger activity in China is comparable to that in Europe, but the majority (about 60%) of the mergers cleared with conditions by the European Commission involve only European companies. There are two possible reasons why in China commitment decisions only concern foreign companies. First, domestic companies might not notify even if they are required by law to do so (only 14% of the dealt with by MOFCOM concern domestic deals). Second, MOFCOM’s commitment decisions often aim to protect domestic competitors from the potential increase in the competitiveness of the merged companies. Companies are sometimes even prevented from pursuing a certain line of business (for example  Wal-Mart/NiuHai) or from reducing their input costs (Marubeni/Gavilon). Synergies and efficiency gains might allow merged companies to out-perform Chinese competitors. China’s competition authorities appear to want to limit this, rather than to enable market conditions that will result in lower prices and better quality products for Chinese consumers.

By contrast, antitrust enforcement has been used mostly as a weapon to fight inflation. The NDRC’s job is to keep prices under control, especially in key sectors for mass consumption. It is no wonder that major cartel cases have concerned rice noodles, garlic and mung beans and infant milk formula. China’s antitrust authorities have not attempted to protect domestic companies; rather, they have tried to protect domestic consumers, as do most antitrust authorities. There has been no evident bias against foreign companies: only two major cartel investigations (flat-screen LCD and milk powder) have also affected foreign companies. In more than 30 cases in which the Chinese authorities have applied sanctions, only domestic companies have been involved. However, the Chinese authorities impose very low sanctions: in the LCD and milk powder cases, fines were on average equivalent to 0.2% of the companies’ global turnover. In Europe, fines in proportion to global turnover are on average ten times higher. With no case selection bias and low fines, the claim that Chinese antitrust disguises industrial policy seems unsubstantiated.

China should transfer its approach to antitrust enforcement to merger control. Making consumer welfare the key driver for assessment of mergers and apply the same treatment to companies regardless of companies’ origin would align China with the standards of assessment implemented by the majority of developed countries and would benefit the Chinese economy; by protecting competition instead of protecting competitors, Chinese authorities would increase Chinese companies’ incentives to be efficient. In the long term, everybody would profit from such a policy.

Convergence of international antitrust enforcement is possible and highly desirable to limit distortions in global competition. Certainty and uniformity in the application of competition rules is a key driver for investment. Bilateral trade talks between representatives of China and the European Union were just initiated last week. It is a good occasion to bring competition policy to the negotiating table.

Policy Contribution ‘The Dragon awakes: Is Chinese competition policy a cause for concern?


Republishing and referencing

Bruegel considers itself a public good and takes no institutional standpoint. Anyone is free to republish and/or quote this post without prior consent. Please provide a full reference, clearly stating Bruegel and the relevant author as the source, and include a prominent hyperlink to the original post.

Read article More on this topic
 

Opinion

Why are some stock markets in Asia less affected by coronavirus?

While Asian markets are in a sea of red, mainland China, New Zealand, Hong Kong and Taiwan are all defying the gravity.

By: Alicia García-Herrero and Gary Ng Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 31, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Is COVID-19 triggering a new emerging-market crisis?

Emerging economies have received little attention in the economic debate regarding the COVID-19 pandemic, yet the performance of their primary market indicators, chiefly sovereign debt, foreign exchange and equities, indicate a deep deterioration is taking place. Times of crisis often lead to capital flight from emerging markets as investors seek safe haven assets, while the localised effects of the disease and the collapse in the price of certain key commodities have also been damaging. More worryingly, this appears to be the beginning of the storm, and emerging economies have far less room for fiscal and monetary manoeuvring.

By: Marek Dabrowski and Marta Domínguez-Jiménez Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 30, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Uncoordinated policies behind market collapse

Underlying issues, and not just the coronavirus panic, fed the recent meltdown

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 10, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

Gerard Masllorens headshot

The cost of coronavirus in terms of interrupted global value chains

The coronavirus is slowly morphing itself into an important shock. While the extent and cost of this pandemic are unknown, we do know that global supply chains that link Europe to China will be seriously disturbed. We take a look at the numbers based on input-output models. The industry that will be the most affected is Computers and Electronics, followed by textiles.

By: Maria Demertzis and Gerard Masllorens Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 9, 2020
Read article More on this topic
 

Blog Post

What can the EU learn from the China-Switzerland free trade agreement?

The US-China trade war has placed EU trade relations with China under the microscope. Should the EU challenge China’s trade practices and employ trade defence measures? Or should they be diplomatic and embark on negotiations, perhaps paving the way to a Free Trade Agreement? Close examination of the 2013 agreement between China and Switzerland suggests much will have to change for trade negotiations between China and the EU to succeed.

By: Uri Dadush and Marta Domínguez-Jiménez Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: March 3, 2020
Read about event More on this topic
 

Past Event

Past Event

The Sound of Economics Live - The Brussels effect: How the European Union rules the world

This was a live recording of an episode of the Sound of Economics, Bruegel's podcast series. The discussion centered around the book of Anu Bradford, The Brussels Effect.

Speakers: Anu Bradford, Ashoka Mody, Giuseppe Porcaro and Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance Location: Bruegel, Rue de la Charité 33, 1210 Brussels Date: March 3, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Companies must move supply chains further from China

Virus shows Southeast Asian factories too dependent on imported production inputs

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 28, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Why the US Trade Agreement will slow China’s economy

The response of the global financial markets to the trade agreement reached between the United States and China has been very positive, probably excessively so given the relatively limited size of the agreement reached.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 20, 2020
Read article More by this author
 

Opinion

Europe may be the world’s AI referee, but referees don’t win

The EU needs to invest in homegrown technology.

By: Guntram B. Wolff Topic: European Macroeconomics & Governance, Innovation & Competition Policy Date: February 19, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

Epidemic tests China’s supply chain dominance

Much has been written on the Wuhan coronavirus that causes the respiratory disease Covid-19, but very little is known yet about its impact on the global economy and, in particular, the global value chain. Still, one thing is clear: The shock is bigger than that caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), for the simple reason that China is much more important for the global economy than it was then.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 17, 2020
Read article More on this topic More by this author
 

Opinion

China’s Coronavirus will not lead to recession but to stimulus and even more debt

The coronavirus outbreak will not lead to recession but the costs of ensuring growth targets will be high

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 6, 2020
Read article Download PDF More on this topic More by this author
 

External Publication

From globalization to deglobalization: Zooming into trade

This article shows some evidence of the decrease in merchandise, capital and, to a lesser extent people to people flows.

By: Alicia García-Herrero Topic: Global Economics & Governance Date: February 3, 2020
Load more posts