IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jlawec/doi10.1086-676517.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Antitrust Predation and The Antitrust Paradox

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth G. Elzinga
  • David E. Mills

Abstract

The widely recognized influence that the Chicago school of law and economics had on the institution of antitrust is nowhere more apparent than in predatory-pricing law. Starting with Aaron Director, this movement had many distinguished contributors. But even in this company, Robert Bork stands out for his part in persuading the judiciary to refocus antitrust law on the interests of consumers rather than on the interests of competing firms. In The Antitrust Paradox and other writings, Bork advanced the Chicago school insight that the kind of aggressive price cutting that, at the time, passed for predatory pricing is instead an essential and, for consumers, beneficial attribute of competition. The resulting change in direction that antitrust has taken in predatory-pricing cases culminated in the Court's Matsushita (Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. Zenith Ratio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 [1986]) and Brooke Group (Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 [1993]) opinions, both of which bear the marks of Bork's influence.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth G. Elzinga & David E. Mills, 2014. "Antitrust Predation and The Antitrust Paradox," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(S3), pages 181-200.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/676517
    DOI: 10.1086/676517
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/676517
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/676517
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/676517?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Drew Fudenberg & Jean Tirole, 1986. "A "Signal-Jamming" Theory of Predation," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 17(3), pages 366-376, Autumn.
    2. Elzinga, Kenneth G, 1970. "Predatory Pricing: The Case of the Gunpowder Trust," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 13(1), pages 223-240, April.
    3. Bolton, Patrick & Scharfstein, David S, 1990. "A Theory of Predation Based on Agency Problems in Financial Contracting," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(1), pages 93-106, March.
    4. Ordover, Janusz A. & Saloner, Garth, 1989. "Predation, monopolization, and antitrust," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: R. Schmalensee & R. Willig (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 9, pages 537-596, Elsevier.
    5. Kreps, David M. & Wilson, Robert, 1982. "Reputation and imperfect information," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 253-279, August.
    6. Milgrom, Paul & Roberts, John, 1982. "Predation, reputation, and entry deterrence," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 280-312, August.
    7. Corwin D. Edwards, 1955. "Conglomerate Bigness as a Source of Power," NBER Chapters, in: Business Concentration and Price Policy, pages 331-359, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Wayne A. Leeman, 1956. "The Limitations of Local Price-cutting as a Barrier to Entry," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(4), pages 329-329.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Dennis W. Carlton & Michael Waldman, 2014. "Robert Bork's Contributions to Antitrust Perspectives on Tying Behavior," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(S3), pages 121-144.
    2. Roger D. Blair & Christina DePasquale, 2014. ""Antitrust's Least Glorious Hour": The Robinson-Patman Act," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 57(S3), pages 201-215.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Chiara Fumagalli & Massimo Motta, 2013. "A Simple Theory of Predation," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(3), pages 595-631.
    2. Argenton, C., 2010. "Predation Under Perfect Information," Discussion Paper 2010-26, Tilburg University, Center for Economic Research.
    3. Argenton, Cédric, 2019. "Colluding on excluding," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 194-206.
    4. Fiona Scott Morton, 1996. "Entry and Predation: British Shipping Cartels 1879-1929," NBER Working Papers 5663, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Nicola Giocoli, 2013. "Games judges don't play: predatory pricing and strategic reasoning in US antitrust," Supreme Court Economic Review, University of Chicago Press, vol. 21(1), pages 271-330.
    6. Bayer, Christian, 2007. "Investment timing and predatory behavior in a duopoly with endogenous exit," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 31(9), pages 3069-3109, September.
    7. Christian Bayer, 2004. "The Other Side of Limited Liability: Predatory Behavior and Investment Timing," Industrial Organization 0407001, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Besanko, David & Doraszelski, Ulrich & Kryukov, Yaroslav, 2020. "Sacrifice tests for predation in a dynamic pricing model: Ordover and Willig (1981) and Cabral and Riordan (1997) meet Ericson and Pakes (1995)," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 70(C).
    9. Germán Coloma, 2002. "Un Modelo Integrado de Depredación y Colusión," Latin American Journal of Economics-formerly Cuadernos de Economía, Instituto de Economía. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile., vol. 39(116), pages 123-133.
    10. Yang, Bill Z., 1996. "Learning, reputation and entry deterrence: A chain-store game with correlated entrants," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 14(5), pages 561-573, July.
    11. C.-Philipp Heller & Heiner Lindenlaub & Frank P Maier-Rigaud, 2020. "Exclusionary bundle discounts: A simple model with two applications," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 40(1), pages 210-216.
    12. Valentiny, Pál, 2004. "Árprés és felfaló árazás. Közgazdasági elmélet, bírói, szabályozói gyakorlat [Price squeezing and predatory pricing. Economic theory and judicial and regulatory practice]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(1), pages 24-45.
    13. David Genesove & Wallace P. Mullin, 2006. "Predation and its rate of return: the sugar industry, 1887–1914," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 37(1), pages 47-69, March.
    14. Hui Chen & Bjorn N. Jorgensen, 2018. "Market Exit Through Divestment—The Effect of Accounting Bias on Competition," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 64(1), pages 164-177, January.
    15. James Dalton & Louis Esposito, 2011. "Standard Oil and Predatory Pricing: Myth Paralleling Fact," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 38(3), pages 245-266, May.
    16. William Comanor & H. Frech, 2015. "Economic Rationality and the Areeda–Turner Rule," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 46(3), pages 253-268, May.
    17. Patrick Rey & Yossi Spiegel & Konrad O. Stahl, 2022. "A Dynamic Model of Predation," CESifo Working Paper Series 9819, CESifo.
    18. Rainer Nitsche, 2000. "Incentives to Grow: Multimarket Firms and Predation," CIG Working Papers FS IV 00-19, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin (WZB), Research Unit: Competition and Innovation (CIG).
    19. Yutian Chen & Wei Tan, 2012. "A Theory on Predatory Advertising After a Demand-Reducing Shock," Eastern Economic Journal, Palgrave Macmillan;Eastern Economic Association, vol. 38(4), pages 460-478.
    20. David Mayer-Foulkes, 2011. "Vulnerable Markets," DEGIT Conference Papers c016_040, DEGIT, Dynamics, Economic Growth, and International Trade.

    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:ucp:jlawec:doi:10.1086/676517. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JLE .

    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.