A legal analysis on the criticism and revision of application and interpretation for Article 19 of Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act in relation to the insurance companies collaborative act based on the administrative guidance by Financial Supervisory Authorities

2018 ◽  
Vol 88 ◽  
pp. 175-200
Author(s):  
Semin Park
Keyword(s):  
Fair Trade ◽  
Insurance Companies ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Administrative Guidance ◽  
Monopoly Regulation

scholarly journals Policy-Making Process in Korea: The Enactment Process of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act

1989 ◽  
Vol 4 (0) ◽  
pp. 81-104
Author(s):  
Jong-Won Choi
Keyword(s):  
Fair Trade ◽  
Process Model ◽  
The Political ◽  
Actor Model ◽  
The Public ◽  
Garbage Can Model ◽  
Monopoly Regulation ◽  
Policy Making Process ◽  
Development Plans ◽  
Governmental Politics

Three dominant perspectives on the origin of regulation (the public mterest model, the capture model, and the politics model) and four models of governmental decision-making (the rational actor model, the organizational process model, the governmental politics model, and the garbage can model) are utilized in order to investigate the enactment process. This article argues that the failure to enact monpoly regulation and fair trade legislation during the 1960's and 1970's can be attributed mainly to the faithful implementation of economic development plans by the Park regime and to the public endorsement of those plans. The enactment of the MRFTA in 1980, however, is ascribed less to a problem-solving kind of activity within the Korean government and more to a temporal simultaneity of the political needs of the new milltary leadership and a few reform-minded career bureaucrats within the EPB.

scholarly journals Implementation Biases of the Antitrust System in Korea: Causes and Consequences

1993 ◽  
Vol 8 (0) ◽  
pp. 59-89
Author(s):  
Jong Won Choi
Keyword(s):  
Industrial Policy ◽  
Fair Trade ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Monopoly Regulation ◽  
Current Implementation ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
Complex Structural ◽  
Perceptions And Expectations ◽  
Economic Concentration

In this paper, we identify three systematic performance biases in the Korean antitrust system: the absence of structural enforcement, the minimal role of antitrust agencies in anticompetitive major industrial policy-making, and the biased conception of the problems of economic concentration. After examining five competing hypothesis based on current implementation literature, we attribute the performance biases mainly to the limited bureaucratic expertise and skills required for complex structural enforcement and to the biased perceptions and expectations, inherent in the policy environment, about the roles of the antitrust system. Further, we connect the two factors above, found in the post-decision period, with some conspicuous features of the preceding enactment process of the Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document