The creation of a competitive environment and anti-monopoly legislation in Uzbekistan

Conclusions:

1. Competition is one of the important features of the market. On the one hand, it appears as a production relationship, and on the other hand, it appears as a coordinating mechanism of social production. A competitive market makes it possible to achieve production efficiency and optimal distribution of economic resources.

   
   

2. According to its scale, competition is primarily divided into two types - intra-industry competition and inter-industry competition. In the economic literature, four forms of competition within the same industry are distinguished. These are pure competition, monopolized competition, pure monopoly and oligopoly.

   
   

3. Pure competition and pure monopoly are rare in real life. Monopolized competition and oligopoly characterize the state of the modern market economy. In monopolistic competition, many small firms produce a wide variety of products, so entering the industry is not difficult.

   
   

4. Since competition is considered the main way of conducting business, the formation of a competitive environment depends on the level of development of the market economy. Competitive environment refers to a set of economic, legal, organizational and political conditions that provide equal opportunities for market relations participants in business. The existence of a competitive environment is the main factor that destroys the ability of an individual firm to achieve a dominant position by acting freely in market conditions.

   
   

5. Monopoly regulation is a very complex process that is difficult to quantify. In Uzbekistan, the state's anti-monopoly measures are carried out in tandem with the process of not only restricting monopoly, but also removing it from monopoly. Enterprises with a dominant position in many sectors (they used to operate as a single enterprise-network) were privatized and turned into independent enterprises, and as a result, a competitive environment was formed in the network.

   
   

6. State antitrust legislation should be flexible enough not to undermine the business of competing entities.