Rep. Hank Johnson's statement on “International Antitrust Enforcement: China and Beyond” before the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Law

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Today’s hearing is a welcome discussion of international antitrust enforcement with a specific focus on China’s approach to competition policy under its Anti-Monopoly Law.

Over the past several decades, one of the most profound developments in antitrust law has been its expansion into the global economy.

In the 1980s, as few as five countries robustly enforced the antitrust laws. Today, more than 100 jurisdictions are members of the International Competition Network, an organization of enforcement agencies. This growing interest in antitrust law reflects a broader trend that reflects nations moving away from centrally-planned economies to open markets.

In recent years, there has also been some divergence from the U.S. approach to antitrust enforcement among nations with established competition authorities. This change is particularly evident in China’s aggressive enforcement of its Anti-Monopoly Law, which includes both pro-competitive goals, such as preventing monopolization, and non-competition directives, such as improving economic efficiencies and development in China.

Some have suggested that these twin goals have, at times, served to protect domestic commerce rather than promote competition.

Examining these differences is important because local enforcement decisions can have global effects, as Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Edith Ramirez has observed.

But diversity in enforcement policy, in itself, is not necessarily bad. Progressives have long suggested that we rethink our antitrust policies to move beyond the “excesses of Chicago School economic theory,” as our former colleague Senator Herb Kohl has referred to it, to incorporate non-economic values that promote the public interest through enforcement policy.

With this in mind, I commend our enforcement agencies for taking a “long view” on competition policy that embraces diverse antitrust frameworks and respects local autonomy while also seeking to establish a fair, independent, and transparent enforcement process internationally.

While more work remains to be done to broaden international consensus and ensure that enforcement policy is not just a tool for promoting domestic or industrial policy goals, I am confident that we can continue to work productively to bridge our differences and complement divergent enforcement regimes.

As we seek consensus, it is imperative that we avoid an exceptional view of our own enforcement practices if we are to build upon ongoing dialogues with other sovereign nations to establish economic and political comity.

In closing, I thank the Chair for holding today’s hearing, and hope to continue to look beyond our own antitrust enforcement practices in future hearings. I also thank our witnesses for their testimony—we truly have a wealth of expertise on our panel—and yield back the balance of my time.

###