1 / 16

6 th Annual Asian Competition Forum Conference 6-7 December 2010, Hong Kong

This presentation outline discusses the evolution and enforcement of competition regimes in India and Vietnam, drawing out key lessons for new competition authorities in Asia. It explores the similarities and differences in their approaches, highlights the challenges they faced, and suggests a way forward. The presentation emphasizes the importance of political will, level playing field, regulatory capture prevention, and capacity building in ensuring effective competition enforcement. Contact CUTS International for more information.

isaaca
Download Presentation

6 th Annual Asian Competition Forum Conference 6-7 December 2010, Hong Kong

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 6th Annual Asian Competition Forum Conference6-7 December 2010, Hong Kong “What lessons for new competition authorities in Asia? -A case study of two countries: Vietnam & India” Vikas Kathuria, CUTS International

  2. Presentation Outline About CUTS International Objectives Why comparison between India and Vietnam? Evolution of competition regime in India and Vietnam Key Lessons Experience: Enforcement of Law Way Forward

  3. CUTS International • Genesis: consumer rights organisation estd. in 1983 • Three resource centres in Calcutta, Delhi and Chittorgarh in India and four resource centres outside India: Nairobi, Kenya; Lusaka, Zambia; Hanoi, Vietnam; and Geneva, Switzerland • Broad areas of work: Trade, Regulation and Governance • Active programmes on competition, regulation and consumer policy and law issues in 30 countries of Africa, and Asia….and growing

  4. Objective Purpose • Draw out some lessons for new competition authorities in the region and elsewhere Means • Comparison between India and Vietnam with respect to their experience in enforcing a competition regime

  5. Why comparison between India and Vietnam? India • emerging economy • huge market • hot spot for investment • long tradition of dealing with competition law • New regime, also young ECONOMIC Vietnam • fast-growing economy • huge foreign direct investment • opening of market and privatisation • young competition regime

  6. Why comparison between India and Vietnam? India • largestdemocracy • shifted from centrally planned economy to liberalised economy in 1991, but a mixed economy • populism and pressure groups are typical to any democracy POLITICAL Vietnam • socialist regime • centrally planned economy till “Doi Moi” process in 1986 • dilemma between free market and state control

  7. Evolution of competition regime in India • Articles 38 & 39 of the Constitution • MRTP Act, 1969 had outlived its utility • Reforms made MRTP Act obsolete -1991 • Adoption of Competition Act, 2002 (amended in 2007) • Establishment of Competition Commission of India (CCI) & Competition Appellate Tribunal (Compat)

  8. Evolution of competition regime in Vietnam • “Doi Moi” process (Economic Reforms) - 1986 • Growth momentum based on Doi Moi lost steam • Vietnam’s desire to join WTO, which it did finally in 2007 • Competition Law: Dec, 2004 and effective from July, 2005 • Establishment of Vietnam Competition Administration Department (VCAD) & Vietnam Competition Council

  9. Approach to Competition Law India • Approachof the law is behavioural as against structural Vietnam • Approach of the law: a combination of both structural and behavioural, but leans more towards structural Lesson: Initially structural approach, but gradual shift to behavioural

  10. Independence

  11. Accountability

  12. Competition Advocacy/Overlap

  13. Competition Advocacy/Overlap 13

  14. Enforcement of the Law

  15. Way Forward • Political economy aspect • One size fits all approach not possible, countries are free to decide the best framework for their case • Strong political will to effectively enforce provisions • Level playing field for private and public sector • Regulatory capture • Need to check control by line ministry • Need to have overarching law to harmonise practices • Capacity building and sensitisation • Need to build -- ‘Competition Culture’

  16. THANK YOU! www.cuts-international.org vk3@cuts.org

More Related