本文選題：保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì) + 固定費(fèi)率行為�。� 參考：《揚(yáng)州大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì),相較于其他行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì),具有一定的特殊性:保險(xiǎn)產(chǎn)品具有高度同質(zhì)性、協(xié)會(huì)具有更大的中介性。保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)本應(yīng)在保險(xiǎn)市場(chǎng)中發(fā)揮著自律、協(xié)調(diào)、指導(dǎo)作用,但是近年來(lái),反壟斷執(zhí)法機(jī)構(gòu)認(rèn)為保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)固定費(fèi)率行為構(gòu)成壟斷,排除、限制了保險(xiǎn)市場(chǎng)的競(jìng)爭(zhēng),違反了《反壟斷法》相關(guān)規(guī)定,是一種違法行為,保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)屢屢遭受處罰。通過(guò)對(duì)被處罰的案例進(jìn)行梳理分析,筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)固定費(fèi)率行為主要形式是組織保險(xiǎn)公司簽訂保險(xiǎn)《自律公約》。判定一項(xiàng)行為是否違反《反壟斷法》,通常依據(jù)本身違法原則和合理原則,目前學(xué)界對(duì)于保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)固定費(fèi)率行為,普遍認(rèn)為固定保險(xiǎn)費(fèi)率屬于固定價(jià)格的行為,限制保險(xiǎn)公司就保險(xiǎn)費(fèi)率展開(kāi)自由競(jìng)爭(zhēng),降低保險(xiǎn)公司的效率,屬于明顯排除、限制競(jìng)爭(zhēng)行為,并且損害了消費(fèi)了利益,因此無(wú)需考慮保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)固定保險(xiǎn)費(fèi)率的目的、后果,應(yīng)當(dāng)直接適用本身違法原則進(jìn)行認(rèn)定。本文認(rèn)為固定費(fèi)率行為并不必然適用本身違法原則,由于本身違法原則與合理原則的范圍并非一成不變,并且在適用本身違法原則時(shí)存在一定困難,因此,應(yīng)當(dāng)根據(jù)合理原則考察保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)固定險(xiǎn)費(fèi)率的目的、對(duì)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)的影響以及對(duì)消費(fèi)者的影響。通過(guò)對(duì)以往案例的總結(jié),筆者提煉出本文的研究點(diǎn)主要就在探討保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)固定費(fèi)率行為的合法性問(wèn)題。對(duì)于保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)的這一行為,學(xué)界看法不一,雖然主流觀點(diǎn)認(rèn)為其違反了《反壟斷法》的規(guī)定,實(shí)踐中也無(wú)一例外對(duì)其進(jìn)行處罰,但是仍有眾多的經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)人士、保險(xiǎn)人士認(rèn)為保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)的行為并沒(méi)有違反《反壟斷法》規(guī)定,保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)的行為是一種合法行為。毫無(wú)疑問(wèn),這一問(wèn)題的解決既有助于消除各界對(duì)此的疑問(wèn),也能夠借此規(guī)范保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)的行為,促進(jìn)保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)的良性發(fā)展,既有理論意義,也有實(shí)踐意義。本文從保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)固定費(fèi)率案例入手,通過(guò)案例分析法,分析目前保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)固定費(fèi)率行為的主要類(lèi)型及形式;通過(guò)比較研究法,闡述美國(guó)以及歐盟對(duì)于該行為的合法性界定;再通過(guò)對(duì)比分析法,對(duì)比學(xué)界、實(shí)務(wù)界認(rèn)為保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)固定費(fèi)率行為違反《反壟斷法》的原因,重點(diǎn)闡述筆者認(rèn)為保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)固定費(fèi)率行為合法的理由;最后提出現(xiàn)行制度并沒(méi)有明確保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)固定費(fèi)率行為合法性,因此需要從制度上予以明確,同時(shí),由于保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)關(guān)乎國(guó)計(jì)民生,對(duì)保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)固定費(fèi)率行為需要予以規(guī)范,保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)應(yīng)按照一定的程序厘定純風(fēng)險(xiǎn)費(fèi)率。
[Abstract]:Insurance industry associations, compared with other trade associations, have some particularities: insurance products have a high homogeneity, associations have a greater intermediary. Insurance industry associations should play a role of self-discipline, coordination and guidance in the insurance market. However, in recent years, the anti-monopoly law enforcement agencies believe that the fixed rate behavior of insurance industry associations constitutes a monopoly, which excludes and limits the competition in the insurance market. Violation of the relevant provisions of the Anti-monopoly Law, is an illegal act, insurance industry associations have been repeatedly punished. Through combing and analyzing the cases of punishment, the author finds that the main form of fixed rate behavior of insurance industry associations is to organize insurance companies to sign insurance "Self-discipline Convention". To determine whether an act is in violation of the Anti-monopoly Law is usually based on its own illegal principle and reasonable principle. At present, the academic community generally thinks that the fixed premium rate is a fixed price act for insurance industry associations. Restricting insurance companies to compete freely on insurance rates and to reduce the efficiency of insurance companies are obvious exclusions, limits competition, and impair the interests of consumption, so there is no need to consider the purpose of fixed insurance rates for insurance industry associations. The consequences shall be directly determined by the principle of violation of the law itself. This paper holds that the fixed rate behavior does not necessarily apply the principle of violation of the law itself, because the scope of the principle of violation of the law itself and the principle of reasonableness are not fixed, and there are some difficulties in the application of the principle of violation of the law itself. According to the reasonable principle, the purpose of the fixed insurance rate, the impact on the competition and the influence on the consumers should be investigated. By summing up the past cases, the author abstracts out the research point of this paper mainly discusses the legality of fixed rate behavior in insurance industry. Scholars have different views on this behavior in the insurance industry. Although the mainstream view is that it violates the provisions of the Anti-monopoly Law and it is punished without exception in practice, there are still many economists. Insurers believe that the conduct of insurance industry associations does not violate the provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Act, insurance industry associations act is a legal act. There is no doubt that the solution of this problem can not only help to eliminate the doubts of all walks of life, but also to standardize the behavior of insurance industry associations and promote the benign development of insurance industry, which has both theoretical and practical significance. This paper starts with the fixed rate cases of the insurance industry association, analyzes the main types and forms of the fixed rate behavior in the insurance industry through the method of case analysis, expounds the definition of the legality of the fixed rate behavior in the United States and the European Union by means of comparative research. Then through the comparative analysis, the author compares the reasons for the violation of the Anti-monopoly Law by the fixed rate behavior of the insurance industry association, focusing on the reasons why the fixed rate act of the insurance industry association is legal; Finally, it is pointed out that the current system does not clearly define the legality of fixed rate behavior of insurance industry associations, so it needs to be clarified from the system. At the same time, because insurance industry associations are related to the national economy and the people's livelihood, The fixed rate behavior of insurance industry association should be regulated, and the insurance industry association should determine the pure risk rate according to certain procedure.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：揚(yáng)州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.294

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 中山大學(xué)嶺南學(xué)院金融學(xué)教授 巴曙松;基金固定費(fèi)率具有合理性[N];證券日?qǐng)?bào);2003年

2 本報(bào)記者金燁;基金固定費(fèi)率合不合理？[N];證券時(shí)報(bào);2003年

3 臨淵;日本移動(dòng)語(yǔ)音資費(fèi)步入固定費(fèi)率時(shí)代[N];人民郵電;2014年

4 記者 蘇文;權(quán)益類(lèi)產(chǎn)品浮動(dòng)費(fèi)率破題 中歐基金飲“頭啖湯”[N];上海證券報(bào);2013年

5 本報(bào)記者 王繼高;浮動(dòng)費(fèi)率基金破繭的背后[N];中國(guó)經(jīng)濟(jì)時(shí)報(bào);2013年

6 楊光;浮動(dòng)費(fèi)率制是市場(chǎng)催化劑[N];中國(guó)證券報(bào);2012年

7 記者 黃婷;業(yè)績(jī)提成產(chǎn)品表現(xiàn)無(wú)優(yōu)勢(shì)？[N];第一財(cái)經(jīng)日?qǐng)?bào);2012年

8 徐清;過(guò)度管制無(wú)益市場(chǎng)成長(zhǎng)[N];檢察日?qǐng)?bào);2013年

9 謝聞麒;公募基金不宜采用浮動(dòng)費(fèi)率[N];中國(guó)證券報(bào);2008年

10 本報(bào)記者 張漢青;收費(fèi)“旱澇保收” 變更面臨法律難題[N];經(jīng)濟(jì)參考報(bào);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 強(qiáng)郡郡;保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)固定費(fèi)率行為的合法性研究[D];揚(yáng)州大學(xué);2017年

，

本文編號(hào)：1890673