Does the European Union ‘Rule the World’? Competition Law Diffusion to Singapore and Hong Kong

ABSTRACT This article examines why Singapore and Hong Kong adopted competition law by testing four diffusion mechanisms: coercion, competition, learning, and the Brussels Effect. Using structured process tracing and extensive archival evidence, it evaluates the distinct observable implications of each mechanism. Singapore—often cited as a most‐likely case for the Brussels Effect—adopted competition law only when the United States made it a requirement of the USSFTA. Hong Kong, despite its greater exposure to EU competition enforcement, resisted reform for nearly 15 years and shifted only when Beijing signaled support for a general competition law. In both jurisdictions, firms did not internalize EU standards or lobby for EU‐style rules, and neither regime adopted EU‐type merger control. Competitive interdependence receives no empirical support, while learning operates mainly as an adaptive tool once external pressure is present. The findings refine the scope conditions of market‐driven regulatory diffusion and highlight the political foundations of ‘economic constitutions.’

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Regulation & Governance
Published
2026-03-20
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/rego.70150
Primary Topic
Merger and Competition Analysis
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Does the European Union ‘Rule the World’? Competition Law Diffusion to Singapore and Hong Kong

Yannis Karagiannis
Regulation & Governance
Merger and Competition Analysis
article

Does the European Union ‘Rule the World’? Competition Law Diffusion to Singapore and Hong Kong

Yannis Karagiannis
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT This article examines why Singapore and Hong Kong adopted competition law by testing four diffusion mechanisms: coercion, competition, learning, and the Brussels Effect. Using structured process tracing and extensive archival evidence, it evaluates the distinct observable implications of each mechanism. Singapore—often cited as a most‐likely case for the Brussels Effect—adopted competition law only when the United States made it a requirement of the USSFTA. Hong Kong, despite its greater exposure to EU competition enforcement, resisted reform for nearly 15 years and shifted only when Beijing signaled support for a general competition law. In both jurisdictions, firms did not internalize EU standards or lobby for EU‐style rules, and neither regime adopted EU‐type merger control. Competitive interdependence receives no empirical support, while learning operates mainly as an adaptive tool once external pressure is present. The findings refine the scope conditions of market‐driven regulatory diffusion and highlight the political foundations of ‘economic constitutions.’

Regulation & Governance
Institut Barcelona d'Estudis Internacionals (ES)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 17%
Merger and Competition Analysis
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.