反垄断法的一个显著特点是受众对其持矛盾的态度。大多数企业希望其交易相对人和竞争者受制于严格执行的反垄断法,但却不希望反垄断法适用于其自身。一旦执法者取得较多胜利且获得公众支持,利益集团会加大游说和公关力度从而挫败执法者的努力。不当使用权力的行为会引起公众的强烈不满,怠于行使权力同样不可取,理想状态是把握成果和程序之间的适度平衡。但是,反垄断执法者会发现,如果成功结案,批评者会抓住所谓的程序漏洞喋喋不休;如果非常重视程序,批评者又会对不理想的执法成果进行批判。有所作为或不作为均遭致批评,原因何在?任何一个监管机构均面临三个关键问题:应该做什么?可以做什么?能够做什么?三个问题分别对应三个关键变量:公共价值、授权环境与运营能力。三个变量之间相互关联,经常处于不均衡、不匹配或不稳定状态,脱离其中任何一个变量都会使执法机构的管理和执法活动的观测更为扑朔迷离。本文运用商业策略分析的常用模型,对其加以调整,将反垄断监管特有的因素考虑在内,观察公共价值、授权环境与运营能力之间的互动,进而以澳大利亚反垄断执法经验为例,分析模型的适用,评析竞争倡导的角色和性质,旨在对中国反垄断执法机构回应挑战、加强策略管理、提高执法能力提供参考和借鉴。 A prominent feature of antitrust law is that its audience holds a contradictory attitude toward it. Most businesses want their counterparties and competitors to be subject to strictly enforced antitrust laws, but they do not want the antitrust laws to apply to themselves. Once law enforcers gain more victories and gain public support, interest groups will step up lobbying and public relations efforts to frustrate enforcers. The improper use of power can cause strong public dissatisfaction and lazy exercise of power is equally undesirable, and the ideal is to grasp the proper balance between results and procedures. However, antitrust law enforcement officials will find that if the case is successfully closed, critics will catch the so-called procedural loopholes and if critics attach too much importance to the procedure, critics will criticize the unsatisfactory results of law enforcement. What are the reasons? Any one of the regulatory agencies is facing three key issues: what should be done? What can be done? What can be done? The three questions correspond to three key variables: public value, Authorize the environment and operational capabilities. The three variables are interrelated and often in an unbalanced, mismatched or unstable state, and the departure from any of these variables can make observations of law enforcement agencies’ administration and law enforcement activities more complicated and confusing. This article uses the common model of business strategy analysis, adjusts it, takes into account the peculiar factors of antitrust regulation, observes the interaction between public value, authorized environment and operation ability, and then takes Australian antitrust enforcement experience as an example, analyzes This paper analyzes the role and nature of competition advocacy in order to provide reference and reference for China’s antitrust law enforcement agencies to respond to the challenges, strengthen strategic management and improve law enforcement ability.