我国2008年颁布《反垄断法》以来，反垄断执法日趋活跃，反垄断执法成效如何，是否达到了立法目的，执法机构和学术界尚未对此开展系统性的事后评估。党的十九届四中全会指出，要做好政策评估和加强反垄断，2020年中央经济工作会议和2021年两会政府工作报告均提出，要强化平台经济反垄断和防止资本无序扩张。当前，系统性评估反垄断执法效果，对提高立法科学化水平，应对数字经济垄断问题，加强和优化反垄断职能，提高国家治理能力，促进构建统一开放和竞争有序的市场体系具有重要的现实意义。本文尝试用效果、效益、效率的分析架构，采用定性、定量和比较研究的方法，评价反垄断执法取得的成绩，评估执法产生的经济和社会效益，对提高经济效率的作用。从执法效果看，与美国、印度等国家相比，中国反垄断执法办案时效、办案质量较高，绩效/成本比显著高于二者，但行政资源严重不足，在采取干预和处罚措施时还略显保守。从效益角度看，原料药垄断案件的执法实践表明，反垄断执法有效维护了医药行业市场竞争秩序，将价格效益传导到终端消费者，降低了患者用药成本，体现了反垄断执法给消费者带来的经济效益。调查问卷显示，反垄断执法的威慑效应使得绝大部分垄断行为在企业内部和外部律师层面得到制止，实证研究也表明反垄断执法对培育社会竞争文化具有显著的促进作用，体现了反垄断执法产生的社会效益。从经济效率角度，创新是经济发展的内在要素，公平竞争的营商环境是企业创业创新的土壤，高通公司滥用市场支配地位案件的查处有助于促进通信相关领域市场公平竞争，激发国内通信企业研发创新的积极性，实证研究表明，反垄断执法对企业专利研发申请和中小企业创业创新具有显著的促进作用。调查问卷显示，中国经济规模较大、执法机构领导能力较强、执法官员工作作风优良是反垄断执法取得成效的主要原因。此外，滥用市场支配地位和行政性垄断执法效果不显著、执法机构行政级别较低、行政资源匮乏、处罚力度较低、独立性不足、平台经济反垄断执法难度大等问题制约中国反垄断执法效能和反垄断法作为经济宪法的作用。为进一步加强和优化反垄断执法，真正实现反垄断法的立法目标，建议提高反垄断执法机构行政级别，做实国务院反垄断委员会职能；加强行政资源投入，增加执法人员编制和工作预算；强化竞争政策基础性地位，提高执法独立性水平；修订《反垄断法》违法责任条款，增强执法威慑力；强化执法能力建设，应对数字经济的挑战。
In 2008, China promulgated the anti monopoly law, the effectiveness of anti-monopoly law enforcement and whether it has achieved the legislative purpose have not been systematically evaluated by law enforcement agencies and academia. The Fourth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee pointed out that good post evaluation plays a positive role in optimizing government functions and promoting the modernization of national governance system and capacity. The central economic working conference in 2020 and the government work report of NPC & CPPCC in 2021 proposed that anti-monopoly should be strengthened against the platform economy and disorderly expansion of capital should be prevented. At present, China's anti-monopoly law enforcement has been carried out for 12 years. When the "anti monopoly law" is about to be revised, systematic evaluation of law enforcement effect has important practical consciousness for improving the scientific level of legislation, dealing with the monopoly of digital economy, optimizing the anti-monopoly function, improving the governance ability, and promoting the construction of a unified, open and orderly competitive market system.This paper attempts to use the analysis framework of effect, benefit and efficiency, using qualitative, quantitative and comparative research methods to evaluate the achievements of anti-monopoly law enforcement, evaluate the economic and social benefits of law enforcement, and the role in improving economic efficiency. From the perspective of law enforcement effect, compared with United States and India, China's anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies have higher efficiency and quality in handling cases, and the performance / cost ratio is significantly higher than the two, but the administrative resources are seriously insufficient, and they are slightly conservative in taking intervention and punishment measures. From the perspective of efficiency, the enforcement practice of Pharmaceutical raw materials monopoly cases shows that anti monopoly law enforcement has effectively maintained the market competition order of the pharmaceutical industry, transmitted price benefits to end consumers, and reduced the cost of patients' medication, which reflects the economic benefits of anti-monopoly law enforcement to consumers. The questionnaire shows that the deterrent effect of anti-monopoly law enforcement makes the vast majority of monopoly behaviors stopped at the level of internal and external lawyers. Empirical research also shows that anti-monopoly law enforcement has a significant role in promoting the cultivation of social competition culture, reflecting the social benefits of anti-monopoly law enforcement. From the perspective of economic efficiency, innovation is the internal factor of economic development, and the business environment of fair competition is the soil for enterprise entrepreneurship and innovation. The case of abuse of market dominance by Qualcomm helps to promote fair competition in the market of communication related fields, and stimulate the enthusiasm of domestic communication enterprises in R & D and innovation. Empirical research shows that anti-monopoly law enforcement has great influence on enterprise patent R & D applications and Entrepreneurship, as well as the development of small and medium sized enterprises.The questionnaire shows that China's large economy scale, strong leadership of law enforcement agencies, and good work style of law enforcement officials are the main reasons for the effectiveness of anti-monopoly law enforcement. In addition, the abuse of market dominance and administrative monopoly law enforcement effect is not significant, the administrative level of law enforcement agencies is low, the administrative resources are insufficient, the punishment is low, the independence is insufficient, and the law enforcement in the Internet platform field is difficult, which restrict the efficiency of China's anti-monopoly law enforcement and the role of anti-monopoly law as an economic constitution. In order to further strengthen and optimize the anti-monopoly law enforcement and truly realize the legislative objectives of the anti-monopoly law, it is suggested to improve the administrative level of the anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies and fulfill the functions of the Anti Monopoly Committee of the State Council; strengthen the input of administrative resources, increase the establishment of law enforcement personnel and work budget; strengthen the basic position of competition policy, improve the level of independence of law enforcement; revise the illegal liability of the anti monopoly law; strengthen the construction of law enforcement capacity in order to meet the challenge of digital economy.
