IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ecinqu/v26y1988i3p423-35.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Antitrust and Competition, Historically Considered

Author

Listed:
  • DiLorenzo, Thomas J
  • High, Jack C

Abstract

Although antitrust laws enjoy wide support among economists, there was almost no such support during the early years of the Sherman Act. One reason for this transformation is a change in the theory of comp etition. Until the 1920s, most economists viewed competition as a dynamic, rivalrous process that would be stifled by antitrust laws. Once the perfect competition model-which largely ignores rivalry was accepted, economists' opinions of antitrust grew more favorable. To the extent that antitrust interferes with rivalry and enterprise, the competitive model has very likely misdirected the profession, at least as far as antitrust policy is concerned. Copyright 1988 by Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation

  • DiLorenzo, Thomas J & High, Jack C, 1988. "Antitrust and Competition, Historically Considered," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(3), pages 423-435, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:26:y:1988:i:3:p:423-35
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    Citations

    Blog mentions

    As found by EconAcademics.org, the blog aggregator for Economics research:
    1. Quotation of the Day…
      by Don Boudreaux in Cafe Hayek on 2023-07-02 08:30:00

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Bougette, Patrice & Deschamps, Marc & Marty, Frédéric, 2015. "When Economics Met Antitrust: The Second Chicago School and the Economization of Antitrust Law," Enterprise & Society, Cambridge University Press, vol. 16(2), pages 313-353, June.
    2. Lefteris Tsoulfidis, 2009. "The rise and fall of monopolistic competition revolution," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 56(1), pages 29-45, March.
    3. Azzam, Azzeddine M., 1998. "Competition in the US meatpacking industry: is it history?," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 18(2), pages 107-126, March.
    4. Walter E. Block, 2017. "Radical Privatization: Oceans, Roads,Heavenly Bodies," Romanian Economic Business Review, Romanian-American University, vol. 12(2), pages 41-56, June.
    5. Mikolaj Klimczak, 2014. "First modern institutions of competition regulation – law and economics or law versus economics?," Ekonomia i Prawo, Uniwersytet Mikolaja Kopernika, vol. 13(3), pages 431-448, September.
    6. Giocoli, Nicola, 2012. "British economists on competition policy (1890-1920)," MPRA Paper 39245, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Octavian-Dragomir Jora & Gheorghe Hurduzeu & Mihaela Iacob & Georgiana-Camelia Cre?an, 2017. "“Dialectical Contradictions” in the Neoclassical Theory and Policy Regarding Market Competition: The Consumer and His Continuos Burden of Crisis," The AMFITEATRU ECONOMIC journal, Academy of Economic Studies - Bucharest, Romania, vol. 19(45), pages 544-544, May.
    8. Christopher Coyne & Russell Sobel & John Dove, 2010. "The non-productive entrepreneurial process," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 23(4), pages 333-346, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ecinqu:v:26:y:1988:i:3:p:423-35. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/weaaaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.