Research on the Standardization of Administrative Penalty Discretion in Market Regulation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62517/jel.202614217

Author(s)

Jiali Jin*

Affiliation(s)

School of Law, China Jiliang University, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China *Corresponding Author

Abstract

Standardizing the discretionary power of administrative penalty in market regulation is of great significance for maintaining market order, ensuring fair law enforcement, and protecting the rights and interests of market entities. Through literature analysis and status quo induction, this study systematically defines the core concepts of market regulation, administrative penalty, and discretionary power, and discusses the necessity of standardizing the exercise of such power. The research finds that current exercise of discretionary power suffers from prominent problems such as inconsistent regional benchmarks, lack of detailed benchmark content, insufficient transparency in the discretionary process, and mechanical application leading to “excessive punishment for minor faults”. Therefore, a standardization path should be constructed by improving the discretionary benchmark system for administrative penalties, strengthening the construction of related systems such as hearings and legal review, and improving internal and external supervision mechanisms.

Keywords

Market Regulation; Administrative Penalty; Discretionary Power; Standardization

References

[1] Guo Yuejin. On Several Basic Theoretical Issues of Market Regulation. Fujian Tribune (Humanities and Social Sciences Edition), 2006, (04): 26-29. [2] Zhao Junshan, ed.; China Administration for Industry and Commerce Society, comp. Market Regulation Theory and Practice Research: A Survey Report from Administrative Law Enforcement. Beijing: Industry and Commerce Publishing House, 2001: 214. [3] Shi Youqi and Chen Yongmei. Research on Administrative System Reform and Its Legalization: Guided by the Scientific Outlook on Development. Guangzhou: Guangdong Education Publishing House, 2013: 69. [4] Zhai Yun. Shaping Digital China Series 2022: Entering the Digital Government. Beijing: National Academy of Governance Press, 2022: 118-119. [5] Huang Lina. Protection and Restriction of Judges' Criminal Discretion from the Perspective of Intelligent Sentencing. Economy and Law, 2025, 1(06): 52-61. [6] Zhang Mengzhu. Current Operation Status and Optimization Path of Administrative Discretion. Legal Exposition, 2025, (28): 34-36. [7] Chen Jinping. How Can Grassroots Law Enforcement Personnel Properly Exercise Discretionary Power?. China Brand and Anti-Counterfeiting, 2021, (10): 47-51. [8] Zheng Minghong. "Excessive and Improper Administrative Penalties" in Yulin, Shaanxi and Other Places: Provincial Notification and Deployment of Rectification. Xinhua Daily Telegraph, 2022-08-30(005). DOI:10.28870/n.cnki.nxhmr.2022.006576. [9] Yang Jianshun. On the Balance of Interests in "Severe Punishment for Minor Faults". China Market Regulation Research, 2024, (07): 5-10. [10]Gao Xiaochao and Liu Zexiang. Analysis on the Path of Regulating Administrative Penalty Discretion. China Brand and Anti-Counterfeiting, 2022, (10): 13-15. [11]Hu Chunfeng, Tan Jiashan, Zhai Yuwen, et al. Research on the Boundary and Institutional Regulation of Administrative Discretion. China Market Regulation Research, 2021, (01): 53-57. [12]Zhang Xue. Regulation of Administrative Penalty Discretion in Market Supervision: From the Perspective of Administrative Self-restraint. Shanghai Business, 2024, (01): 211-213. [13]Ju Mingfeng. Analysis and Countermeasure Research on Issues of Administrative Penalty Discretion. China Market Regulation Research, 2021, (05): 79-80+24.