Antimonopoly

In a Flawed Antitrust Paradigm Shift, Tacit Collusion May Be One Area Worth Exploring

Tim Brennan finds the new shift in antitrust thought and enforcement connected to the Neo-Brandeisian movement to be flawed for the most part. However, he writes that a reinvigorated focus on tacit collusion, which some have blamed on the rise of prices for groceries and apartment rents, may deserve consideration and further study.

The Biden Competition Policy Paradigm Has Been Primarily Post-Chicago, Not Neo-Brandeisian

Steven C. Salop writes that the Biden administration oversaw a paradigm shift in antitrust, but it was the full adoption of the ideas of the Post-Chicago school, whose intellectual influence has countered Chicago since the 1980s, rather than the empowerment of the Anti-Monopoly or Neo-Brandeisian school of thought. This latter school of thought played an important role by motivating increased enforcement and corralling political support, even if it did not lead to cases that could not have been brought by Post-Chicagoans.

After Neo-Brandeis

Daniel Francis reviews the evolutionary and revolutionary dimensions of the Biden administration’s antitrust work, and argues that these two projects have been in deep tension. He concludes that the administration’s evolutionary work within the welfarist paradigm has generated some important successes, but that the revolutionary effort to restore a pre-welfarist vision of antitrust has failed on its own terms — and, in failing, has left welfarism all the stronger.

The Rise of the Antitrust Consensus Against Neoliberalism

Eleanor Fox writes that the paradigm shift in United States antitrust is not best understood as an embrace of neo-Brandeisian anti-bigness ideas but rather a rejection of neoliberal principles that have prevented effective antitrust regulation for decades. The shift encompasses the concerns and efforts of centrists, progressives, and neo-Brandeisians.

Thomas Kuhn and the Structure of an Antitrust “Revolution”

John W. Mayo reviews whether or not the articulated principles and priorities of the Neo-Brandeisian movement in antitrust scholarship and enforcement represent a “paradigm shift,” per the philosophy of Thomas Kuhn. Mayo finds that the Neo-Brandeisian discourse is best understood as situated within the continuum of the current antitrust paradigm, and that many of its efforts to substantiate its distinctive ideas have failed to properly ground them in empiricism or repudiate existing studies.

The Consumer Welfare Standard and Antitrust Enforcement: a Response

Alden Abbott, former general counsel of the FTC, argues that, contrary to claims made in a recent ProMarket article, American competition is vibrant and robust....

Fixing a Broken Antitrust Regime

In her new book Antitrust, Senator Amy Klobuchar explains the origins of US antitrust law, diagnoses how the nation got derailed from the legislative...

What Should the Biden Administration’s Antitrust Agenda Look Like? A Roundtable

How will US antitrust policy look under President Joe Biden? We caught up with four antitrust experts—Jonathan Baker, Zephyr Teachout, William Kovacic, and Teddy...

Three Steps the Biden Administration Should Take to Tackle America’s Monopoly Problem

The Biden Administration can revive federal antimonopoly enforcement after 40 years of little action, even when faced with congressional opposition. Here’s how.  The new Biden...

What the US Economy Could Look Like if Digital Markets Were Open and Competitive

The US House of Representatives' investigation into digital platforms has opened Americans' eyes to the widespread harms that flow from the illegal monopolization of...

LATEST NEWS