Three points are as follows:
First of all, from the perspective of actors, the perpetrators of administrative monopoly behavior are the government and its subordinate departments, rather than operators or competitive entities in the market. This is a concrete manifestation that the transformation of government functions has not yet been fully implemented in the process of my country's economic transition. Since government agencies have special status and functions compared with ordinary operators, their restrictions and obstacles to competition are serious, and it is difficult to adjust and regulate them. This requires that when making legal adjustments to administrative monopoly, we should make legislative innovations based on our country's national conditions and the characteristics of its subjects, and adopt regulatory measures that are different from those to stop economic monopoly, so as to achieve effective governance of administrative monopoly.
Secondly, judging from the reasons for its formation and its effect on competition, administrative monopoly is caused by actors using administrative means to directly or indirectly exert administrative power on economic competition activities. Its source of advantages is It is administrative power, not economic factors. Economic monopoly is formed by market entities participating in market competition and using various competitive strategies and means to obtain the concentration of market power and the growth of economic capabilities. It is the product of competition developing to a certain stage. Throughout its formation process, the economic advantages within the entity play a decisive role, including the advantages of economies of scale, patented technology advantages, product differentiation advantages, and after-sales service system advantages, etc. Generally speaking, before reaching an illegal monopoly, they mostly rely on their own economic strength to participate in fair market competition, undergo the test of survival of the fittest, and gradually establish their dominant position in the market. This formation process itself is full of competition-based pursuits. Reasonable factors for survival and development cannot be said to be unreasonable even after a monopoly is achieved. Only when the subject abuses its advantageous position to restrict the normal progress of competition, the law will regulate it. Administrative monopoly is completely different. It is always exerted by non-economic administrative power. The economic subjects it plays often cannot reach the level of scale advantages, and the technology and equipment are not necessarily advanced. Many businesses lack alternatives. Therefore, a situation will be formed in which the operating conditions of these entities are likely to be inefficient and backward, but they obtain huge profits by relying on administrative monopoly. This situation clearly reflects the distortion of the competition process and the destruction of competition results by administrative monopoly.
Third, from the perspective of harmful consequences, in addition to economic monopoly, administrative monopoly also causes damage such as restrictions and destruction of fair competition, low efficiency of resource allocation, low efficiency of operation and management, and low efficiency of dynamic technology. In addition to the consequences, it also makes the market's own operating rules subject to administrative intervention, losing its regulatory function of coordinating production layout, optimizing resource allocation, and improving overall economic efficiency. It artificially sets up market barriers, hinders the formation of a unified national market, and encourages industry injustice. It increases the space for cadres to abuse their power for personal gain, induces corruption, reduces people's trust in the government, and even leads to serious social hazards and political crises.