Analisis Kebijakan Single Presence Policy Dibidang Perbankan Ditinjau Dari Uu No.5 Tahun 1999 Tentang Larangan Praktek Monopoli Dan Persaingan Usaha Tidak Sehat
In the year of 2006 Central Bank of Indonesia issue central bank regulation that obligate bank owner that have controlling share in more than one bank to merger or acquisition its bank in order to strengthen bank capital core and simplified supervision. But the implementations of this act can collid...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Theses and Dissertations NonPeerReviewed |
| Published: |
[Yogyakarta] : Universitas Gadjah Mada
2011
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://repository.ugm.ac.id/90351/ http://etd.ugm.ac.id/index.php?mod=penelitian_detail&sub=PenelitianDetail&act=view&typ=html&buku_id=52910 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Universitas Gadjah Mada |
| Summary: | In the year of 2006 Central Bank of Indonesia issue central bank
regulation that obligate bank owner that have controlling share in more than one
bank to merger or acquisition its bank in order to strengthen bank capital core and
simplified supervision. But the implementations of this act can collide with anti
trust law. The purpose of this thesis is to know how the mechanism an
implementation of single present policy in banking in reality and how those act
from section 27 about dominant position of anti trust law and what obstacle that
happen in implementation practice.
This thesis focuses on how Single Presence Policy regulation in
banking environment can collide with anti trust law. The study is grounded on
assumption of violation of anti trust regulation that indicate from couple of
banking owner that have majority share in more than one bank will brake anti
trust law if implement SPP. The research was judicial normative normly library
research with references to rules and regulations embodied in various forms of
legislation related to monopoly and unfair business competition in order to obtain
secondary data. To support it, field research was carried out to obtain primary
data. The conclusions were drawn from the results of qualitative analysis.
The results of the research indicates that in reality Single Presence
Policy in banking environment cannot be implement as target schedule and the
assumption of anti trust violation cannot be proofed because even all criteria has
been accomplished but there is no evidence of violation. In one hand because
Single Presence Policy in banking environment is not effectively implement, in
other hand because there is not much banking owner that implement Single
Presence Policy , so to prove the assumption of violation of anti trust cannot be
done. |
|---|