SFeDu
of.211, Gorgoko St., 88 
Rostov-on-Don
Russia
344002
+7 (863) 250-59-54
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
te@sfedu.ru

TERRA ECONOMICUS

Economic approach toward assessment of antimonopoly law efficiency

TERRA ECONOMICUS, , Vol. 11 (no. 3.1),
p. 62-71

The urgency of antimonopoly law efficiency estimation under the modern conditions is readily apparent from creation of The Common Economic Space (CES) by Russia, Kazakhstan and Byelorussia and development of common antimonopoly law for member countries. In order to make developed law satisfy the requirements, it is necessary to base projectable institutes on modern conception of efficiency. In spite of the fact that CES antimonopoly law is of recommendatory nature, there can be no doubt that it will be the main guideline for further development of Russian antimonopoly policy; it will, thereby, indirectly determine the realities of Antimonopoly regulation, causing strong influence on business activity in the Russian Federation. As a result, there is necessity to assess efficiency of antimonopoly law norms. The article presents an approach to the conception of antimonopoly law efficiency; the influence of antimonopoly law on competition development and public welfare is shown.


Keywords: law and economics, law efficiency, antimonopoly law

References:
  • Ananjin О.А. (ред.) (2005). Economics as art: methodological issues of implementation of economic theory in applied socio-economic research. Institute of Economics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Moscow: Nauka Publ., 255 p. (In Russian.)
  • Armentano D.T. (2005). Antitrust against competition. Moscow: Alpine Business Books, 432 p. (In Russian.)
  • Avdasheva S.B., Shastitko A.E. and Kalmichova E.N. (2007a). Economic basis of antimonopoly policy: Russian reality in context of world experience. Part I. Economic Journal of Higher School of Economics, no. 1, pp. 89–122. (In Russian.)
  • Avdasheva S.B., Shastitko A.E. and Kalmichova E.N. (2007b). Economic basis of antimonopoly policy: Russian reality in context of world experience. Part II. Economic Journal of Higher School of Economics, no. 2, pp. 234–270. (In Russian.)
  • Eatwell J., Molgate M., Newman P. (eds.) (2004.) Economic theory. Moscow: INFRA-M, XII, 931 p. (In Russian.)
  • Knyazeva I.V. and Lukashenko O.A. (2010) Modernization of theory and practice of antimonopoly regulation at the present stage: principles and trends (international experience). Modern competition, no. 3, p. 88–96. (In Russian.)
  • Knyazeva I.V. and Lukashenko O.A. (2011) Transformation of antimonopoly policy into the policy of protection of competition in modern economic conditions. Novosibirsk: Siberian Academy of Public Administration Publ., Novosibirsk State Technical University Publ., 304 p. (In Russian.)
  • Melnikov V.V. (2006). Far sight price. New law on public purchases from the standpoint of entry to WTO. Goszakaz: management, arrangement, provision, no. 4, p. 104. (In Russian.)
  • Raskov D.E. (2010). The image of economy in institutional economics. Bulletin of Saint-Petersburg University, series 5: Economics, pp. 32–41. (In Russian.)
  • Shmakov A.V. (2010). Urge towards just co-operation as the motive of economic behavior. TERRA ECONOMICUS, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 57–61. (In Russian.)
  • Shmakov A.V. and Petrov S.P. (2010). Priority of efficiency criteria in law projecting. TERRA ECONOMICUS, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 123–130. (In Russian.)
  • Shmakov A.V. and Petrov S.P. (2012). Identification of the optimal value of fine for the violation of antitrust law. TERRA ECONOMICUS, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 85–94. (In Russian.)
  • Tambovcev V.L. (2005). Law and economics. Moscow: INFRA-M, 224 p. (In Russian.)
  • The Federal Law of the Russian Federation (26 June 2006) № 135-FZ «On protection of competition». Available at: http://base.garant.ru/12148517/. (In Russian.)
  • The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic Law (22 March 1991) no. 948-I «On the competition and limitation of monopolistic behavior on the goods markets». Available at; http://www.9111.ru/materials/?dop=1&dop2=0___22___23. (In Russian.)
  • Williamson O.E. (1996) The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. Saint-Petersburg: Lenizdat; CEV Press, 702 p. (In Russian.)
  • Bork R.H. (1993). The antitrust paradox: A policy at war with itself. New York: Free Press, 186 p.
  • David S.E. and Padilla A.J. (2005). Designing antitrust rules for assessing unilateral practices: a neoChicago approach. The university of Chicago law review, pp. 73–98.
  • Kaplow L. and Shapiro C. (2007). Antitrust. NBER Working Paper Series, 151 p.
  • Kovacic W. (1999). Designing antitrust remedies for dominant firm misconduct. Connecticut Law Review, no. 31, pp. 1285–1293.
  • McChensey F. (1991). Be true to your school: Conflicting Chicago approaches to antitrust regulations. Cato Journal, pp. 775–798.
  • Nihoul P. (2009). The limitation of intellectual property in the name of competition. Fordham International Law Journal, pp. 489–524.
  • Posner R. (2000). Antitrust in the New Economy. John M. Olin Law & economics working paper no. 106 (2d series). Available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=249316.
  • Posner R. (2001). Antitrust law: An economic perspective. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 316 p.
Publisher: Southern Federal University
Founder: Southern Federal University
ISSN: 2073-6606