경쟁과 다양성: 방송관련법의 목적의 관점

홍대식 한국법제연구원 2013 법제연구 Vol.- No.44

This article firstly explores into the concepts, components, and pictures of institutional realization of competition and diversity respectively on the premise that competition and diversity comprise the primary objectives to be pursued by the broadcasting-related laws which provide the concrete measures of media policy, and argues that while the competition objective has differentiation factors, there are also particularities in the diversity value in the broadcasting-related laws as sector-specific competition laws. Then assuming that special competition rules including structural regulatory measures particularly in the broadcasting market are required in order to realize values of competition and diversity harmoniously, this article suggests the following improvement directions for regulations aimed at protection of competition and diversity in the broadcasting-related laws. The first one is with the improvement method for regulations aimed at protection of competition. Regulation on share of audience as an ex ante regulation of status and regulation on prohibited activities as an ex post regulation of conduct may play important roles in substituting the causative regulation while seeking for diversity value. For this purpose, it is needed to develop a concrete method that incorporates diversity-related factors as consideration factors in the standard for determining illegality of prohibited activities by inference to methods of determining illegality in the competition law. The second one is with the improvement method for regulations aimed at protection of diversity. This could be considered from three viewpoints that are the setting of regulatory objectives, the identification of alternative regulatory measures, and the choice of regulatory measures and levels suitable for regulatory objectives. From these viewpoints, the regulatory framework should be improved mainly with institutional measures in which diversity value is used for tools of assessment and analysis, not just remaining as mere rhetorical devices, and whether or to what extent to maintain regulations seemingly unreasonable in terms of harmonization with economic objectives such as competition should be discreetly reviewed. 이 글에서는 먼저 경쟁과 다양성이 미디어 정책의 구체적인 수단을 규정한 방송관련법이 추구하는 주된 목적이 된다는 것을 전제로 하여 각각의 개념과 구성요소 그리고 그 제도적 구현의 모습을 살펴보고, 특정분야의 경쟁법으로서의 방송관련법에서는 경쟁 목적이 차별성 요인을 갖는 한편 다양성 가치도 특수성을 갖는다는 논의를 전개한다. 다음으로 경쟁과 다양성 가치를 조화롭게 실현하기 위해서는 방송시장 특유의 구조적 규제수단을 포함하는 특별한 경쟁규칙이 필요하다고 전제하면서, 방송관련법상 경쟁 목적 규제와 다양성 목적 규제에 대하여 개선되어야 할 방향을 다음과 같이 제시한다. 첫째, 경쟁 목적 규제의 개선 방안이다. 사전적인 상태적 규제로서의 시청점유율 규제와 사후적인 행위규제로서의 금지행위 규제는 다양성 가치를 추구하면서도 원인적 규제를 대체하는 데 중요한 역할을 할 수 있다. 이를 위하여 공정거래법의 위법성 판단방식을 유추하여 다양성 관련 요소를 금지행위의 위법성 판단기준의 고려요소로 하는 방식을 구체적으로 개발할 필요가 있다. 둘째, 다양성 목적 규제의 개선 방안이다. 이는 규제 목적의 설정, 대체가능한 규제수단의 식별, 규제 목적에 맞는 규제수단과 규제수준의 선택이라는 3가지 관점에서 검토될 수 있다. 이러한 관점에서 다양성 가치가 단순한 수사적 도구에 그치지 않고 평가 및 분석 도구로 사용될 수 있는 제도적 수단 위주로 규제 틀을 개선하는 한편, 경쟁과 같은 경제적 목적과의 조화를 고려할 때 불합리해 보이는 규제에 대하여는 이를 유지할 것인가 또는 어느 정도로 유지할 것인가를 신중하게 재검토해야 한다.

국제카르텔 제재의 국제적 수렴현상

이세인 梨花女子大學校 法學硏究所 2013 法學論集 Vol.17 No.3

Competition law regulates anti-competitive activities such as cartel, illegal mergers, and abuse of market power. Global Convergence in competition law area means that the competition laws of different countries change and move to similar direction. The reason that we can see significant global convergence in competition law area during the last twenty years is that countries cooperate in legislating and enforcing their competition laws. Countries cooperate through bilateral relationship between two countries, or they cooperate through international organizations such as OECD and UN to discuss current topics on competition law and to suggest some relevant policies in the area. Actually, during the last twenty years, the United States and the European Union have been major players in leading bilateral cooperation as well as multilateral movement for global convergence in competition law area. In relation to enforcement against international cartel, many countries including the United States, the European Union, Japan, China, and Korea have recently developed its competition tools in similar direction. First of all, they increased level of criminal or administrative penalties against the companies and individuals who engage in international cartels. Some countries even greatly increased maximum number of years of imprisonment for individuals up to ten years. Second, many countries adopted leniency policy for the purpose of expediting investigation process, and actually increasing number of companies and individuals are using the leniency policy to be exempted from fines and imprisonment. Third, many countries now apply their competition laws to the activities carried on outside of their countries under the theory of extraterritorial application. Although different countries use various legal doctrines for extraterritorial application of their competition laws, Korea, the US, the EU, and many countries use “Effect Doctrine”, which mean that if the anti-competitive activities carried out outside the country brings effect to the country, the competition law of the country should be applied to such activities. In sum, countries in the world have developed their competition laws to strongly enforce anti-cartel regulations and punish severly against the law-breakers during the last twenty years. Strong anti-cartel regulation may help to stabilize world market by stimulating competition. However, it also means greater risk of violating competition laws of foreign countries for Korean multinational companies, whose main activity is making sales in different countries. Under this circumstance, global convergence can work positively for these companies because they now have an expectation on how the law may be in other countries, or how it would develop. I am in the opinion that Korean competition authority, legal community, and academics should cooperate in researching and educating fast-changing competition environment of the world to the actual players in the corporations so our corporations carry out its business under the global standard of competition. 국제화 시대를 맞아 여러 나라들의 교류를 통해 다양한 법 분야에서 수렴현상이 일어나고 있다. 이 중 한 분야가 경쟁법 분야인데, 특히 국제카르텔 제재와 관련한 부분에서 수렴현상이 두드러지게 나타나고 있다. 이 분야에서 주요하게 나타나는 수렴현상은 과징금 및 형사처벌의 강화, 자진신고제도의 도입 및 활용의 증대, 관련 경쟁법 규정의 역외적용이다. 첫째, 과징금 및 형사처벌의 강화와 관련하여서는, 미국과 유럽연합의 경우 2000년대 중반에 카르텔 가담자에 대한 형사처벌 및 과징금 부과 규정을 강화시켰고, 한국과 일본의 경우도 국제카르텔에 대한 형사 및 행정제재의 수위를 높여 최근 적발된 국제카르텔에 대해 거액의 벌금 및 과징금을 부과한 바 있다. 둘째, 자진신고제도의 도입 및 활용의 증대와 관련하여서는, 한국, 미국, 유럽연합, 호주, 일본이 현재 모두 자진신고제도를 운영하고 있다. 또한 증가하는 과징금 및 벌금에 대해 부담감을 느끼는 기업과 개인들이 자진신고제도를 보다 많이 활용하고 있다. 셋째, 경쟁법의 역외적용과 관련하여서는, 많은 국가들이 자국 영토 밖에서 행해진 카르텔 행위라고 하더라도 자국 내 시장에 영향을 미쳤을 경우에는 이를 처벌하는 법률을 제정하거나, 판례로서 법리를 구성하여 해당 카르텔 가담자들을 처벌하고 있다. 국제카르텔 제재부분의 수렴현상을 주도한 가장 대표적인 주체는 미국과 유럽연합이라고 할 수 있다. 이들은 1991년에 반독점협력협정을 맺고 다양한 경쟁법 분야에서의 협력을 꾀하여 왔다. 그러나 2000년대에 들어서는 국제기구 및 네트워크를 중심으로 세계 여러 나라가 경쟁법의 발전과 수렴에 역할을 담당하였다고 할 수 있다. 우리나라의 입장에서 볼 때, 위의 세 가지 현상을 포함한 국제카르텔 분야의 수렴현상은 몇 가지 의미가 있다고 할 수 있다. 첫째, 국제카르텔에 대한 제재 강화 및 역외적용은 수출에 의존하는 우리 기업들이 타국의 경쟁법 체재에 노출될 위험이 증대되는 것이라고 할 수 있다. 그러나 둘째로는 이미 경쟁법 관련 국제기구 및 단체에서 활발하게 활동하고 있는 우리 경쟁당국과 법조인 및 학자를 통해 변화하는 경쟁법 수렴 환경을 빠르게 파악하여 국내 기업들을 교육할 수 있는 환경에 있다는 것을 의미하기도 한다. 즉, 기업들이 처하게 될 경쟁 환경은 제재가 강화된다 할지라도, 이를 사전에 파악하고 충분히 대처하여 우리 기업들의 경쟁 활동이 글로벌 스탠다드에 맞도록 할 수 있다는 것이다. 셋째, 세계 무역의 상당 부분에 관여하고 있는 우리나라가 국제적인 수렴현상을 주도적으로 이끌 기회를 얻을 수 있다고 본다. 현재 각국에서 국제카르텔에 대한 제재 강화현상이 두드러지고 있으나, 아직까지 하나의 행위에 대해 여러 나라에서 처벌될 수 있는 위험성을 어떻게 해결할 지의 문제, 각국의 손해배상 산정법이 다른 경우 발생하는 공정성의 문제 등에 대해 거시적으로 제안을 한 경우는 없었다. 이는 다국적으로 활동하는 우리 기업들에게 현실적으로 다가오는 문제인 만큼, 앞으로 이러한 부분에 대한 연구도 더 심도 있게 진행되기를 기대해 본다.

공정거래법과 지적재산권법 : 공정거래법 위반의 주장과 지적재산권침해금지소송

홍대식 민사판례연구회 2009 民事判例硏究 Vol.- No.31

지적재산권은 그 행사가 야기하는 법적 상황이 공정거래법상 문제를 제기하는 경우가 적지 않다. 그 이유는 지적재산권의 경우 그 창출을 통한 시장활동을 통하여 시장경제의 활성화를 지향하는 측면이 있다는 사실에서 찾을 수 있다. 이로 인하여 지적재산권의 행사에 공정거래법을 적용하기 위해서는 공통적인 목적이 필요하다. 공정거래법과 지적재산권법은 소비자 후생을 증진하고 기술혁신을 촉진하는 공통적인 목적을 공유하고 있다고 인식되고 있다. 기술혁신과 관련된 목적에 초점을 맞출 때, 기술혁신은 정태적 경쟁과 동태적 경쟁을 포괄하는 경쟁 개념에 기초한 경쟁을 촉진하는 것으로도 이해될 수 있다. 이 논문은 지적재산권 보유자의 일정한 행위가 공정거래법에 위반한다고 판단된 우리나라 하급심 판결을 논의의 소재로 삼고 있다. 판결의 분석을 통해 추출되는 몇 가지 쟁점은 다음과 같다. 지적재산권의 행사와 그 제한에 관한 법적 원리를 어떻게 정립할 것인가, 공정거래법의 목적과 지적재산권법의 목적을 어떻게 이해할 것인가, 그리고 그와 같은 목적들을 실현하기 위한 법적 수단 사이의 긴장을 조정하기 위하여 어떤 법해석적 방법을 사용할 것인가? 이러한 배경 하에, 이 논문은 먼저 지적재산권의 행사와 그 제한에 관한 일반론을 살펴보고(II), 이어서 공정거래법이 지적재산권의 남용을 규제하는 규범으로서 작용하는 상황을 법적 기초와 판단기준이라는 관점에서 고찰한다(III). 이 부분에서는 지적재산권의 행사에 대한 적용제외 원칙을 규정한 공정거래법 제59조과 불공정거래행위를 규정한 공정거래법 제23조가 자세히 검토될 것이다. 그때까지의 논의의 연장선상에서 이 논문은 판단기준의 적합성과 구제수단의 유효성을 평가하는 방식으로 대상 판결을 분석한다(IV). 이상의 논의를 종합하여, 이 논문은 공정거래법과 지적재산권법의 관계는 공통적인 목적을 추구하는 것으로 인식되어야 하고 지적재산권의 허용된 한계를 넘는 행위에 대하여 공정거래법을 적용할 때 그러한 목적에 따른 한계가 설정되어야 한다는 결론을 맺는다. 남은 문제들 부분에서는 향후의 연구과제들이 제시된다(V). Intellectual property right("IPR") raises some competition law issues under the situations caused by the exercise of IPR. The reason can be found in the fact that IPR has an inclination to activate market economy via market activities for the creation of IPR. This requires the common principles to be applied to the exercise of IPR with competition law. Competition law and intellectual property laws are recognized to share the common purpose of promoting innovation and enhancing consumer welfare. Focusing on the purpose relating to innovation, promoting innovation can be also understood as promoting competition based on the competition concept covering both static competition and dynamic competition. This article takes a Korean low court decision which held against IPR owner's certain act as infringing competition law for a discussion source. The analysis of the decision draws several issues; how to establish the legal principles of the enforcement of IPR and its restraints, how to understand the purposes of competition law and intellectual property laws, and which analytic method to use for co-ordinating the tension between legal measures to materialize those purposes. Against this background, this article first deals with the general theories regarding the enforcement of IPR and its restraints(II), and then explores the situations in which competition law works as rules controlling misuse of IPR in light of legal basis and standard(III). In this part, Article 59 of Korean competition law which stipulates exemption principle for the enforcement of IPR and Article 23 of Korean competition law which provides unfair trade practices are closely reviewed. To the extension of the discussion that far, this article analyses the decision in the way to assess the appropriateness of its standard and the effectiveness of its remedies(IV). The discussion leads to the conclusion that the relationship between competition law and intellectual property laws should be perceived as searching for the common purposes and there should set a limitation following such purposes when applying competition law to acts going beyond the permitted limit for the enforcement of IPR. The research subjects later are suggested as a closing(V).

경쟁법상 디지털 생태계 관련 수직거래 제한

최요섭 한국경제법학회 2024 경제법연구 Vol.23 No.2

As digitisation has rapidly developed around the globe, we have seen diverse views on competitive harms in the field of digital ecosystems. This topic has become one of the critical topics relating to competitive analyses, which involves market power of platforms and appraisal standards of their competitive effects. In particular, a gatekeeper’s control of participants in its digital ecosystem can be considered as an anti-competitive conduct, but it is difficult to conclude whether its conduct infringes competition rules. Accordingly, this article provides suggestions for some trade-off tests in the implementation of competition law, as follows. First, if it is necessary to examine competitive effects of intra-ecosystem competition from a short-term perspective, we need to examine conflicts between participants in an ecosystem and their competition with rivals in other ecosystems. In contrast, if it is essential to examine coordination between entities within an ecosystem to improve inter-ecosystem competition from a long-term perspective, we need to consider an assessment of competition for the welfare of end users. Second, it is necessary to assess competitive effects of gatekeepers’ conducts by examining both inter-ecosystem competition and intra-ecosystem competition. Most of all, a competition authority should focus on competition between gatekeepers that control their own ecosystems. If a restraint on intra-ecosystem can improve inter-ecosystem competition, the competition authority should take into account the balance between two types of competition. 전 세계적으로 디지털 생태계와 관련한 다양한 경쟁폐해가 논의되고 있으며, 플랫폼의 시장력과 경쟁제한성 판단기준이 경쟁법 분야에서 중요한 연구주제가 되었다. 특히, 디지털 생태계의 게이트키퍼가 생태계 구성원을 통제하는 것이 경쟁제한의 문제가 될 수 있는데, 관련하여 경쟁법상 위법성을 판단하는 것이 쉽지 않다. 따라서 본 논문은 디지털 생태계 관련 경쟁법집행의 비교형량을 위해 다음과 같이 제언한다. 첫째, 단기적인 측면에서 생태계 내의 경쟁을 중심으로 경쟁제한성을 판단해야 한다면, 생태계 참여자(이용사업자) 사이의 경쟁과 생태계 간의 경쟁을 분석해야 한다. 그러나 장기적인 측면에서 생태계 간 경쟁증진을 위한 참여자 사이의 협력을 고려한다면, 소비자(최종이용자)의 후생과 혁신을 고려한 비교형량심사가 필요하다. 둘째, 생태계 간의 경쟁과 생태계 내의 경쟁을 각각 세분화하여 경쟁효과를 분석해야 한다. 생태계 간의 경쟁은 생태계를 지배하는 통제플랫폼 또는 게이트키퍼 간 경쟁이 주요한 분석대상이 될 것이다. 만약, 생태계 내의 경쟁을 제한하여 생태계 간의 경쟁이 현저하게 증진된다면, 이를 비교형량심사에 적극 참고할 필요가 있다.

경쟁지수를 이용한 소나무-굴참나무 혼효림에서의 경쟁관계 구명

鄭東浚 ( Dong Jun Chung ),李鐘樂 ( Jong Lak Lee ) 산림경영정보학회 1998 산림경영정보 Vol.1 No.1

본 연구에서는 소나무 - 굴참나무 혼효림에 있어서 각 사면별(북, 서, 남) 입지조건에 따른 수종별 경쟁관계를 구명하고자 하였다. 이를 위하여 사면별 위치종속조사를 실시하고, 조사된 자료를 개체목별로 12개의 경쟁지수에 적용하여 추정된 경쟁지수에 의한 종간경쟁 및 종내경쟁을 구명하였다. 소나무를 중심목으로 정하고 인접목으로 굴참나무만을 채택한 종간경쟁에서는 l1개의 경쟁지수가 북사변에서 남사면으로 옮겨가면서 점차 증가하는 경향을 나타냈다. 이는 소나무에 대한 굴참나무의 경쟁 압력이 북사면으로부터 남사면으로 증가함을 의미하는 것이다. Schütz와 Hegyi의 경쟁지수에 의하여 추정한 종내경쟁에서는 소나무와 굴참나무를 각각 중심목으로 정하고 인접목의 수종 구분 없이 추정된 경쟁지수를 비교한 결과, 굴참나무는 남사면에서 북사면쪽으로 갈수록 점차 경쟁지수가 증가하고 있으나 소나무는 이와 상반된 경향을 나타냈다. 이로부터 소나무가 특히 남사면에서 굴참나무에 의해 경쟁 압력을 받고 있음을 알 수 있다. Hegyi와 Amey의 경쟁지수와 최근 10년간의 흉고직경 정기평균생장량과의 관계를 사면별로 분석한 결과, 모든 사면에서 경쟁지수가 증가함에 따라 정기평균생장량은 감소하는 역의 상관관계를 나타냈다. 경쟁지수에 따른 소나무의 정기평균생장량 감소는 남사면보다 북사면에서 아주 명확하게 높게 나타났는데 이는 남사면에서 굴참나무는 높은 경쟁력을 갖고 있음을 의미하는 것으로 이에 대한 적절한 무육조치가 필요할 것으로 판단된다. This study aimed to reveal the competition status in mixed stands of Pinμs densiflora-Quercus variabilis by using the competition indices by slope exposition. For this, position-dependent data were collected and applied to 12 different competition indices. Based on the estimated competition indices, both intraspecific competition and interspecific competi-tion were investigated by slope exposition(N, W, S). In intraspecific competition, eleven competition indeces were increasing from north to south-facing slope exposition. This means that competition pressure of Quercus variabilis over Pinus densiflora was increasing from north to south-facing slope. This trend is also proved by the analysis of interspecific competition. Comparison of shütz and Hegyi’s competition indices shows that two species have contrary tendency in terms of competition by slope exposition. Quercus variabilis strongly gives competition pressure to Pinus densiflora in south-facing slope. By the analysis of relationship between periodic annual increment(PAI) for recent ten years and Daniel’s and Hegyi’s competetion indices by slope exposition, there exists inverse correlation between PAI and competetion indices. PAI of Pinus densiflora is clearly high in south-facing slope rather than in north-facing slope. This represents that Quercus variabilis has strong competiveness over Pinus densiflora in south-facing slope. As a result, significnat tending practice should be applied to each stand based on the competition status.

해외부문과의 잠재적 경쟁과 시장구조: 실증분석과 정책적 함의

최용석,조성빈 한국개발연구원 2007 KDI Journal of Economic Policy (KDI JEP) Vol.29 No.1

Opening domestic market to international trade may enhance not only actual competition but also potential competition from foreign competitors. It seems that the competition authority has focused mainly on the actual competition (measured by the current market share) and has paid less attention to the potential competition. In this regards, this paper investigated the relation between potential foreign competition and domestic market structure. Using dynamic panel regression model, we analyzed the dynamic response of import penetration to the changes of domestic market condition in Korea as a proxy for the degree of potential foreign competition. The empirical results suggests that potential foreign competition does exist in the Korean manufacturing sector and this tendency is more stronger when the market is more concentrated. Thus, in order to effectively implement competition policy, it is necessary to consider both actual and potential competition. 대외개방의 진전은 해외로부터의 실재적 경쟁(actual competition)과 잠재적 경쟁(potential competition)을 동시에 촉진할 수 있다. 경쟁정책을 집행하는 데 있어 지금까지 경쟁당국은 국내시장에서 수입품이 차지하는 비율, 즉 실재적 해외경쟁만을 고려해 온 경향이 있으며, 잠재적 경쟁에 대한 고려는 상대적으로 적었던 것으로 판단된다. 본 논문은 수입침투율의 국내시장조건에 대한 동태적 반응을 잠재적 경쟁의 측정지표로 사용하여 해외로부터의 잠재적 경쟁이 한국의 산업별 시장구조에 따라 어떤 차이를 가지는가를 살펴보는 것을 목적으로 하고 있다. 동태적 패널모형을 이용한 실증분석의 결과, 해외로부터의 잠재적 경쟁이 유의하게 존재하며, 이는 국내시장구조가 상대적으로 독과점화되어 있는 경우 보다 강하게 나타난다는 것을 발견하였다. 이러한 결과는 국내시장구조만으로 경쟁의 정도를 파악하는 데에는 한계가 있으며, 따라서 경쟁정책의 왜곡을 줄이기 위해서는 해외부문과의 잠재적 경쟁을 적절히 반영하는 것이 필요하다는 것을 시사해 주는 것이라고 할 수 있을 것이다.

COMPETITION BETWEEN GENERALIST AND SPECIALIST IN A SMALL BUSINESS CONTEXT

Jeeyeon Kim,Woo Yong Jo,Alex Jiyoung Kim,Jeonghye Choi 글로벌지식마케팅경영학회 2017 Global Fashion Management Conference Vol.2017 No.07

This paper aims to expand our understanding on the success factors of small businesses, which comprise of more than 90 percent of all businesses in U.S. in 2016. One of the most critical issues behind small business success is the competition, which becomes increasingly intense. Not only small businesses fiercely compete with larger competitors (e.g. Emergence of mega-retailers such as Wal-Mart has intensified the competition in the grocery industry, and, as a result, many mom and pop stores have gone out of business.), but also the competition against each other (i.e. competition between small businesses) becomes increasingly aggressive. Yet, the current literature in marketing have less investigated the issue of competition between small businesses, while issues on competition between small and large businesses have been somewhat explored. Another phenomenon in small business that has not received much attention is the competition between generalist and specialist firms. This phenomenon of specialist versus generalist competition is in fact frequently observed in many industries. Therefore, we study competition between small businesses, focusing on the competition between generalist and specialist small businesses. We examine how competitive intensity, as well as market environmental factors, affect the performance of small businesses. Specifically, we decompose the competitive intensity into two types, one between generalists and the other between specialists, in order to identify the differential effects of competition between generalist and specialist, and examine their impacts on the generalist and specialist performance. Given the research questions above, we develop the following hypotheses based on the past research in marketing. First, we expect competition has a positive effect on generalist performance, while we expect the opposite effect on specialist performance. We also expect that the effect of competition becomes weaker, as the competition becomes more intense. That is, the positive (negative) impact of competition on generalist (specialist) performance becomes less significant as there are more competitors in the market. We further expect that competition between the same type of businesses (e.g. between generalists) has a positive effect on their performance, while competition between the difference types (e.g. between generalist and specialist) has a negative effect on their performance. Moreover, we expect that market environmental factors have differential effects on the performance of generalist and specialist. To test the aforementioned hypotheses on the small business competition between generalist and specialist, we collected data from the health care industry on private physician practices (offices) in Korea. Out data contain, for each practice, monthly sales, number of doctors, number of nurses, type of practice, number of beds and zip code it is located in. We also have data on average consumer spending, average medical spending, percentage of patients over sixty years old for each zip code. Moreover, we have data on competition between the same type of offices (e.g. between generalists and between specialists) and competition between different types (e.g. between generalist and specialist). Note that our data collected from the Korean health care industry fit our research questions well. First, the majority of medical service providers in Korea are small private practices with an average number of two doctors, and the share of generalist and specialist practices are about half-and-half. Second, unlike the U.S. health care industry, generalist physicians in Korea usually practice a number of different fields, while specialist physicians focus on their own specialties. Third, patients in Korea do not usually distinguish between generalist and specialist offices, and they do not usually have a primary care physician. As a result, patients can easily switch between physicians, and in fact the switching is highly likely, as all medical information is centralized by government. Our main findings are as follows. First, we find that competition has a positive effect on generalist performance, while it has a negative effect on specialist performance. Specifically, we find that generalist benefits from competition with both generalist and specialist, while specialist suffers from the competition with both specialist and generalist. As competition becomes intense, meaning the number of physician offices increases, it would attract more patients to visit the area where physician offices are clustered (clustering effect), while it becomes easier for patients to switch from one to the other nearby offices. In particular, as generalist usually treats multiple fields (specialties), generalist tends to benefit from the patients who switch from specialist. In other words, generalists benefit from competition, as they free ride on clustering of physicians including specialists, while specialists would suffer from competition. Second, our findings show that as the competition becomes more intense, its effect on business performance becomes weaker. That is, a high level of competition weakens the benefits and damages imposed on the performance of generalist and specialist, respectively. When there are more physician offices to switch, the effect of free riding becomes weaker, as patients have more options to choose from. Thus, the benefit of generalist from free riding becomes weaker, as well as the negative effect on specialist performance. Moreover, our findings suggest that market environmental factors do influence the business performance. Specifically, the performance of both generalist and specialist improves as the number of doctors increases. However, an increase in the number of nurses has a different effect on generalist and specialist. Employing a larger group of nurses has a negative effect on generalist because it might cause the operation of the office to be less efficient. However, since specialist’s practice usually involves a more technical and sophisticated processes, a larger group of nurses could make the office more efficient having a positive impact on the sales performance. Similarly, we find the effects of other environmental factors have differential impacts on the performance of specialist versus generalist.

오스트리아 학파의 관점에서 본 시장경제질서에서 경쟁과 독점의 의미

배진영 ( Jin-young Bae ) 한국질서경제학회 2008 질서경제저널 Vol.11 No.1

Korea is engulfed everyday by uproar of thousands of citizens against U.S. beef imports in May 2008. The textbook of economics always teaches that trade can make everyone better off. Regardless of this principle, the everyday uproar of beef imports leads to the situation of anarchy. This shows evidently how difficult it is to get them to understand logics of market economy order and competition from their hearts. To a certain extent this difficulty should result from the somewhat distorted and false interpretation about competition and monopoly. Economists should at least be responsible for providing an accurate knowledge about the essentials of the disciplines of market economy. This paper aims to provide a valuable appraisal of crucial aspects of market, competition and monopoly which differs from the textbook of economic principles which is dominated by Marshallian and Keynesian paradigm. This paper is based on the thoughts of Austrian School, especially Hayekian and Misesian paradigm. Market economy is a spontaneous order of a collaboration of free human actions. It is not the result of human design. This implies that a free market economy can be interpreted and understood in the best way only by analysing human behaviors and circumstances which set the limit of human actions, stressing knowledge and discovery. The Austrians adhere to these paradigms. It is the reason why this paper on the topic of competition and monopoly is written in the Austrian school's perspectives Despite all the criticism given on the model of perfect competition, it still occupies the starting point of all the positive and normative discussions. In fact, perfect competition is a sleeping competition. There is no competition at all. This has virtually ignored the role of competition in the market. As a result, it makes lots of students sketch the real market falsely and leads to the inaccurate interpretation of competition. Competition is a process of knowledge exchange between buyers and sellers. It is interpreted as a voyage of exploration and discovery into the unknown, too. It is also a process of differentiation through which one discovers his own best advantage that others have not. Therefore it could not be said that competition is inhumane. Interpreting competition like that, we can observe and understand the vitality of a real dynamic market process. There can be no monopoly or monopoly price on the free market. Monopoly can be defined only as a grant of privilege by the state. Monopoly price can not be distinguished at all from competitive price, because there is no discernable and identifiable competitive price. There is also no grounds that monopoly diminishes social welfare. The profit comes from the differences of the product and production factor. All profit should return not to the entrepreneur but to the production factors that enable to attain the profit.

경업금지계약의 유효성 판단기준으로서 경쟁 - 우리 민법 제103조와 미국에서의 논의를 중심으로 -

진도왕 한국민사법학회 2012 民事法學 Vol.61 No.-

Korean civil law has placed not too much emphasis on competition in the market. In Korea, most debates on competition have mainly been raised in the context of anti-trust laws and unfair competition laws. However, competition almost always pervades transactions between individuals, which are governed by civil law. This is because competition derives from autonomy or freedom of contract that serves as a fundamental principle of Korean civil law. Civil law may be obliged to cover some competition issues that are not associated with antitrust and unfair competition laws. Thus, it is not surprisingly to attempt to revitalize our understanding of competition in civil law. When concerning validity of a non-competition contract, Korean courts have looked at its anti-competitive effects, depending on Korean Civil Law, article 103. Courts have upheld that the article 103 is designed to protect competition and it also can be applied to all kinds of contracts. Nevertheless, courts’ decisions have not provided any standard for determining the effects non-competition contracts have on competition. Rather, they seem to skip it after a comparative analysis between an employer’s legitimate interests and an employee’s interests. Although contract law basically serves to define the contractual relationships between individuals, its focus needs to be extended to concern about competition because contractual relationships converge into a market economy. Moreover, given that Korean Supreme Court has incorporated competition into Korean Civil Law article 103, it needs to focus on the meaning of competition in establishing legal treatment of non-competition contracts. In this sense, this paper develops the meaning of competition in non-competition contracts by appeal to American important scholarly literature. First of all, it is important to define nature of industries in which non-competition contracts accelerate the tension between employers and employees. At this stage, recasting non-competition contracts as a control over intellectual property markets aids in developing the meaning of competition. Intellectual property laws serve to regulate the activities associated with not only creating, but also developing, disseminating,commercializing, and marketing knowledge. Thus, the meaning of competition in intellectual property markets should not be limited to focusing on creation of intellectual property. Placing too much emphasis on its creation leads to granting too strong exclusivity to intellectual property owners. This allows her to shape the market by controlling entry of knowledge-based products into a market. Non-competition contracts may serve as too strong exclusivity in intellectual property markets. That is,they may allow employers to too tightly control the flow of knowledge into the marketplace. It impedes distribution of innovation that can make consumers better off. When understood this way, the meaning of competition becomes more understandable. When courts determine whether non-competition contracts are anti-competitive, they should recognize its function to control and shape the market for intellectual property. And they also needs to focus on how it affects consumer interests.

경쟁시장의 창출과 경쟁법: 유비쿼터스도시서비스 시장의 경우

홍대식 ( Dae Sik Hong ) 한국경쟁법학회 2009 競爭法硏究 Vol.19 No.-

This article tries to deal with specific competition issues raised in the course of making a new market in which there had been no market function at all or the spontaneous formation of the market function is hard to be expected. Under such situations, competition-fostering policy defined broadly should be implemented which requires positive policy measures distinctive from those for the general competition law. As a proposition to the discussion, this article draws a line between the general competition law and the special competition law and corresponds the former to the narrowly-defined competition-fostering policy in comparison to the broadly-defined competition-fostering policy. I will use the term of the broadly-defined competition-fostering policy as inclusive of various policy tools designed to aim to establish a pro-competitive institutional framework. Against this background, this article focuses on the case of the ubiquitous city service markets which are encouraged to emerge with the operation of the Act on the Construction, etc. of Ubiquitous Cities(U-City Construction Act). Recently, the U-City model as a new futuristic city paradigm tends to actively apply to both the development of new cities and the improvement of old city regions in Korea. U-city Construction Act has it as an objective to improve competitiveness of the cities and to promote sustainable development. The U-City concept has two elements: U-City infrastructure and U-City services. Viewed from the whole process of the U-City realization, the former is related to planning and construction stages and the latter is related to the management and operation stages. For the U-City services to be profitable enough to induce private investment, the active role of government is needed in developing business models based on the definition of property rights and in presenting public-private partnership or private participation models because the public feature of the U-City services does not seem to allow the creation of competitive markets and even the spontaneous market formation. By explaining some institutional tasks and suggesting some kinds of ways to cope with those, I would like to emphasize the importance and effectiveness of the competition principle which should be consistently preserved even in the context of the broadly-defined competition-fostering policy.