There have been contrastive views on the enforcement of the Antimonopoly Act (AMA) of Japan between domestic and foreign parties concerned. In Japan, business circles frequently complain that the AMA enforcement has been too stringent for them to improve international competitiveness. On the other hand, from abroad the JFTC has long been seen as a “watchdog trained not to bite,” and the US government frequently alleges that, because of lax enforcement of the AMA, cartels and exclusionary practices are prevalent in Japanese markets. The author explains some causes of such perception gap between home and abroad on the JFTC’s enforcement activities and makes some proposals to narrow the gap. He believes that, although antitrust is one of the best examples of legal transplants and convergence, procedures have deep roots in respective legal soils and culture, and develop gradually.
