jagomart
digital resources
picture1_Competition Pdf 122626 | 200410


 182x       Filetype PDF       File size 4.78 MB       Source: www.lpem.org


File: Competition Pdf 122626 | 200410
economics and finance in indonesia vol 52 2 page 187 20 indonesia s experience with its first anti monopoly law thee kian wie abstract this paper describes the historical origin ...

icon picture PDF Filetype PDF | Posted on 09 Oct 2022 | 3 years ago
Partial capture of text on file.
                      Economics and Finance in Indonesia Vol. 52 (2), Page 187 - 20; 
                           Indonesia's Experience 
                                 with its First 
                             Anti-Monopoly Law 
                                   Thee Kian Wie 
                                      Abstract 
                   This paper describes the historical origin of Indonesia's First Competition Law, 
                   which was enacted on 5 March 1999. The paper argues that a proper 
                   competition policy includes both: (1) market-opening or competition-promoting 
                   policies that enhance competition in national and local markets and (2) a 
                   competition law (sometimes referred to as an anti-monopoly or anti-trust law). 
                   The paper offers several critical notes on the Competition Law and argues that 
                   three major issues need to be taken into account in a future revision of the Law to 
                   ensure a consistent approach to the Law, namely: 
                   1. Clarity in the definition of the goals of the Competition Law; 
                   2. Universal application of the Law to all business actors; 
                   3. Clear division between market share and anti-competitive business conduct. 
                   Kejrwords; Competition policy-Competition law-Indonesia 
                   JEL Classification: K20, K21 
                   ©2004 LPEM                                187 
                         Thee Kian Wie 
                          1. HISTORICAL ORIGIN OF INDONESIA'S ANTI-MONOPOLY 
                              LAW 
                          Indonesia's first anti-monopoly law (officially entitled the Law 
                          concerning the Prohibition of Monopolistic Practices and Unfair Business 
                          Competition) was promulgated on 5 March 1999, and became effective on 
                          5 September 2000. It was hoped that through the enactment of this law, 
                          fair competition between business actors and an efficient market 
                          economy could be achieved. The implementation ot the law was 
                          entrusted to the Supervisory Commission on Business Competition 
                          (KPPU), which was established by Presidential Decree on 8 July 1999. On 
                          7 June 2000, eleven Commission members were appointed by 
                          Presidential Decree and endorsed by the Indonesian parliament. At 
                          present, however, the Commission consists ot only ten members, as one 
                          ot the members was appointed as a Cabinet Minister in the government 
                          ot President Megawati in 2001. 
                               The anti-monopoly law originated in the first Memorandum ot 
                          Economic and Financial Policies (MEFP) or Letter ot Intent (Lol) in 
                          November 1997, in which the Indonesian government described the 
                          policies that it intended to implement in the context ot its request tor 
                          tinancial assistance from the IMF. These policies included a strategy ot 
                          structural reforms, aimed at transforming Indonesia's 'high-cost 
                          economy' into one which would be more open, competitive and efficient. 
                          To achieve this transformation, the strategy called for foreign trade and 
                          investment to be further liberalized, domestic activities to be further 
                          deregulated, and the privatization program accelerated (IMF 1). 
                               In the Supplementary Memorandum ot Economic sand Financial 
                          Policies signed in April 1998 the Indonesian government committed itself 
                          to improve competitive conditions in a number ot specific markets as 
                          part ot its economic restructuring program. To enhance the overall 
                          efficiency ot markets, the government also committed itself to write and 
                          implement an anti-monopoly law to establish guidelines tor fair business 
                          practices and to avoid anti-competitive behavior. As a first step, the 
                          government committed itself to implement by September 1998 the 
                          necessary regulations establishing guidelines and clear procedures and 
                          mechanisms tor mergers, acquisitions, and exit which would facilitate 
                          efficient corporate restructuring while safeguarding against anti-
                          competitive or predatory behavior. The government also committed itself 
                          to complete a broader draft law by December 1998 (IMF III). 
                            Paper originally presented at the International Conference on Competition Policy, 
                            Kuala Lumpur, 19 July 2004. I would like to acknowledge the kind permission of Dr. 
                            Ross McLeod, Editor of the Bulletin of Indonesian Studies (HIES), to include in this 
                            paper parts of an earlier paper. Competition Policy in Indonesia and the New Anti-
                            Monopoly Law' which was published in the December 2002 issue of BIES. 
                          188 
                                                      Indonesia's Experience with its First Anti-Monopoly Law 
                                  In August 1998 the German and Indonesian governments signed 
                             an agreement under which the German government would support the 
                             drafting process and implementation of an anti-monopoly law in 
                             Indonesia. German support consisted of direct consultations by several 
                             top-ranking German experts on competition law and the organization ot 
                             a series ot seminars to familiarize the general public with the objectives 
                             and contents ot an anti-monopoly law (Siahaan, 2002: xix). Operational 
                             support was coordinated by the German Technical Assistance Agency 
                             GTZ (Gesellschaft fuer Technische Zusammenarbeit), which in cooperation 
                             with other donors, including USAID, CIDA, Ausaid, and the World 
                             Bank, provided tinancial support and technical assistance to the 
                             Indonesian government tor the drafting ot the law in accordance with 
                             European and UNCTAD (United Nations Conference tor Trade and 
                             Development) standards (Hegemer, 2002: xii). However, in drafting the 
                             law. Professor Wolfgang Kartte, coordinator ot the German experts, 
                             stressed two important points, namely that, first, the anti-monopoly law 
                             must be a creation ot the Indonesian people themselves in order to 
                             inculcate them with a feeling ot ownership ot this law; and, second, that 
                             the implementation ot the law would require much time and patience, as 
                             it would require an overall change ot attitudes and understanding on the 
                             part ot society as a whole (Siahaan, 2002: xix - xx). Serious problems 
                             could occur it Indonesian culture and prevailing economic ideas and 
                             reality were not taken into account in the implementation and 
                             enforcement ot the anti-monopoly law. j 
                             2. THE PERVASIVENESS OF POLICY-GENERATED BARRIERS TO 
                                 DOMESTIC COMPETITION 
                             After the end ot the oil boom era in 1982, the Indonesian government 
                             introduced a wide-ranging deregulation and structural adjustment 
                             program aimed at promoting a more efficient and competitive private 
                             sector, including foreign investors, which could replace the state-
                             dominated oil sector as the major engine ot economic growth and the 
                             major source ot export revenues. The program included measures to 
                             restore macroeconomic stability as well as deregulation ot the highly 
                             protectionist trade regime to reduce its strong anti-export bias and ot 
                             restrictive foreign investment schemes to attract more foreign direct 
                             investment (FDI), particularly export-oriented FDI. 
                                  While successive trade reforms from the mid-1980s through 1996 
                             led to greater import competition, restrictions on domestic competition 
                             and trade were pervasive in the 1980s and first halt ot the 1990s, thus 
                             hobbling the growth ot progressive, efficiency-seeking enterprises (Iqbal, 
                             2002: 98). These restrictive regulations and restraints on domestic 
                                                                                         18< 
                          Thee Kian Wie 
                          competition and trade were introduced by central and regional 
                          governments, and sometimes by officially sanctioned trade and industry 
                          associations (World Bank, 1995: 45). Naturally, these regulations and 
                          restrictions increased the costs ot doing business in Indonesia, (leading to 
                          complaints about Indonesia's 'high-cost economy'), and reduced 
                          efficiency and limited economic opportunities, including tor small- and 
                           medium-scale enterprises (SMEs). 
                                The various restrictive regulations and restraints on domestic 
                           competition and trade took many forms, including marketing controls, 
                           entry and exit controls, price controls, exclusive licensing, public sector 
                           dominance in certain activities, sanctioning ot cartels, ad hoc instruments 
                           in favor ot well-connected firms in certain industries, and controls and 
                           'taxes' on intra-country trade (Iqbal, 2002: 98; World Bank, 1995: 45). 
                                The data in Table 1 shows a sample ot the variety and scope ot the 
                           various restrictions imposed on various sectors before the Asian 
                           econonuc crisis ot 1997/98. 
                                                       Table 1 
                                         Restrictions on domestic competition before 1997 
                               Type of restriction   Sectors affected by restrictions 
                           Cartels                   Cement, glass, plywood, paper 
                           Price controls            Cement, sugar, rice, autos 
                           Entry and exit controls   Plywood, autos 
                           Exclusive licensing       Clove marketing, wheat flour milling 
                           Public sector dominance   Steel, fertilizer 
                           Source: Iqbal, 2002, Table 6, p. 99 
                           These policy-generated barriers to domestic competition reflected a 
                           myriad ot objectives. Some commodities were designated as 'essential', 
                           and therefore their distribution was deemed too important to be left to 
                           the market (e.g. cement, fertilizer). In the cement and fertilizer industries 
                           regulation ot domestic distribution was accompanied by a significant 
                           state presence (i.e. large presence ot state-owned enterprises, or SOEs) in 
                           production. For other products restrictions on domestic competition were 
                           used along with restrictions on international trade to promote infant 
                           industries or to promote revenue in processing activities (e.g. wheat 
                           flour, soymeal). For other products, such as pljrwood, the restrictions 
                          were used as instruments to enhance Indonesia's power in world 
                           markets. In other cases, the objective was to increase local revenue by 
                          imposing controls on domestic competition (World Bank, 1995: 46). 
                           190 
The words contained in this file might help you see if this file matches what you are looking for:

...Economics and finance in indonesia vol page s experience with its first anti monopoly law thee kian wie abstract this paper describes the historical origin of competition which was enacted on march argues that a proper policy includes both market opening or promoting policies enhance national local markets sometimes referred to as an trust offers several critical notes three major issues need be taken into account future revision ensure consistent approach namely clarity definition goals universal application all business actors clear division between share competitive conduct kejrwords jel classification k lpem officially entitled concerning prohibition monopolistic practices unfair promulgated became effective september it hoped through enactment fair efficient economy could achieved implementation ot entrusted supervisory commission kppu established by presidential decree july june eleven members were appointed endorsed indonesian parliament at present however consists only ten one ...

no reviews yet
Please Login to review.