IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/halshs-01027432.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

When Economics Met Antitrust: The Second Chicago School and the Economization of Antitrust Law

Author

Listed:
  • Patrice Bougette

    (GREDEG - Groupe de Recherche en Droit, Economie et Gestion - UNS - Université Nice Sophia Antipolis (1965 - 2019) - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UniCA - Université Côte d'Azur)

  • Marc Deschamps

    (BETA - Bureau d'Économie Théorique et Appliquée - INRA - Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique - UNISTRA - Université de Strasbourg - UL - Université de Lorraine - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)

  • Frédéric Marty

    (GREDEG - Groupe de Recherche en Droit, Economie et Gestion - UNS - Université Nice Sophia Antipolis (1965 - 2019) - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique - UniCA - Université Côte d'Azur)

Abstract

In this article,we use a history of economic thought perspective to analyze the process by which the Chicago School of Antitrust emerged in the 1950s and became dominant in the US. We show the extent to which economic objectives and theoretical views shaped antitrust laws in their inception. After establishing the minor influence of economics in the promulgation of US competition laws, we then highlight US economists' very cautious views about antitrust until the Second New Deal. We analyze the process by which the Chicago School developed a general and coherent framework for competition policy. We rely mainly on the seminal and programmatic work of Director and Levi (1956) and trace how this theoretical paradigm was made collective, i.e. the "economization" process took place in US antitrust. Finally, we discuss the implications, if not the possible pitfalls, of such a conversion to economics - led competition law enforcement.

Suggested Citation

  • Patrice Bougette & Marc Deschamps & Frédéric Marty, 2014. "When Economics Met Antitrust: The Second Chicago School and the Economization of Antitrust Law," Working Papers halshs-01027432, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-01027432
    Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01027432
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-01027432/document
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Sandrine Jacob Leal & Mauro Napoletano & Andrea Roventini & Giorgio Fagiolo, 2016. "Rock around the clock: An agent-based model of low- and high-frequency trading," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 49-76, March.
    2. Einer Elhauge, 2007. "Harvard, Not Chicago: Which Antitrust School Drives Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decisions?," CPI Journal, Competition Policy International, vol. 3.
    3. Miscamble, Wilson D., 1982. "Thurman Arnold Goes to Washington: A Look at Antitrust Policy in the Later New Deal," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(1), pages 1-15, April.
    4. Nicola Giocoli, 2012. "Crossed destinies: law and economics meets the history of economic thought," History of Economic Ideas, Fabrizio Serra Editore, Pisa - Roma, vol. 20(3), pages 15-24.
    5. Nicola Giocoli, 2015. "Old lady charm: explaining the persistent appeal of Chicago antitrust," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 96-122, March.
    6. R. H. Coase, 1972. "Industrial Organization: A Proposal for Research," NBER Chapters, in: Economic Research: Retrospect and Prospect, Volume 3, Policy Issues and Research Opportunities in Industrial Organization, pages 59-73, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Nicola Giocoli, 2009. "Competition Versus Property Rights: American Antitrust Law, The Freiburg School, And The Early Years Of European Competition Policy," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 5(4), pages 747-786.
    8. Stephen Breyer, 2009. "Economic Reasoning and Judicial Review," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(535), pages 123-135, February.
    9. 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.
    10. Michael R. Baye & Joshua D. Wright, 2011. "Is Antitrust Too Complicated for Generalist Judges? The Impact of Economic Complexity and Judicial Training on Appeals," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 54(1), pages 1-24.
    11. Giocoli, Nicola, 2008. "Competition vs. property rights: American antitrust law, the Freiburg School and the early years of European competition policy," MPRA Paper 33807, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. Stephen Breyer, 2009. "Economic Reasoning and Judicial Review," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 119(535), pages 123-135, February.
    13. Patrice Bougette & Frédéric Marty & Julien Pillot & Patrice Reis, 2012. "Exclusivity in High-Tech Industries: Evidence from the French Case," Post-Print halshs-00691836, HAL.
    14. Gressley, Gene M., 1964. "Thurman Arnold, Antitrust, and the New Deal," Business History Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 214-231, July.
    15. William E. Kovacic & Carl Shapiro, 2000. "Antitrust Policy: A Century of Economic and Legal Thinking," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 14(1), pages 43-60, Winter.
    16. Frank H. Knight, 1932. "The Newer Economics and the Control of Economic Activity," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(4), pages 433-433.
    17. J. Gregory Sidak, 2008. "Abolishing The Price Squeeze As A Theory Of Antitrust Liability," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 4(2), pages 279-309.
    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. Jean-Luc Gaffard, 2022. "Instabilité et résilience des économies de marché: Essai sur l'économie du libéralisme social," GREDEG Working Papers 2022-33, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.
    2. Thierry Kirat & Frédéric Marty, 2019. "The Late Emerging Consensus Among American Economists on Antitrust Laws in the Second New Deal," CIRANO Working Papers 2019s-12, CIRANO.
    3. Patrice Bougette & Frédéric Marty, 2020. "Information Exchange among Firms: The Coherence of Justice Brandeis' Regulated Competition Approach," Working Papers halshs-03086314, HAL.
    4. Patrice Bougette & Oliver Budzinski & Frédéric Marty, 2019. "Exploitative Abuse and Abuse of Economic Dependence: What Can We Learn From an Industrial Organization Approach?," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 129(2), pages 261-286.
    5. Thierry Kirat & Frédéric Marty, 2021. "The late emerging consensus among American economists on antitrust laws in the 2nd New Deal (1935-1941)," SciencePo Working papers Main halshs-03261721, HAL.
    6. Thierry Kirat & Frédéric Marty, 2021. "How Law and Economics Was Marketed in a Hostile World: the institutionalization of the field in the United States from the immediate post-war period to the Reagan years," Working Papers halshs-03124774, HAL.
    7. Thierry Kirat & Frédéric Marty, 2020. "The Late Emerging Consensus Among American Economists on Antitrust Laws in the Second New Deal (1935-1941) (Revised Version)," CIRANO Working Papers 2020s-46, CIRANO.
    8. Thierry Kirat & Frédéric Marty, 2020. "From the First World War to the National Recovery Administration (1917-1935) - The Case for Regulated Competition in the United States during the Interwar Period," CIRANO Working Papers 2020s-66, CIRANO.
    9. Frédéric Marty, 2020. "Protecting the competitive process, not a competitive structure Reflections on the book by Nicolas Petit Big Tech and the Digital Economy," Working Papers halshs-03034024, HAL.
    10. David Cayla, 2022. "How the Digital Economy Challenges the Neoliberal Agenda: Lessons from the Antitrust Policies," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(2), pages 546-553, April.
    11. Michael E. Doron, 2023. "Could Accounting Have Saved Itself from the Antitrust Laws?Revisiting the Antitrust Investigations into the US Accounting Profession 1966–1990," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 59(3), pages 847-871, September.
    12. Frédéric Marty, 2020. "Is the Consumer Welfare Obsolete? A European Union Competition Law Perspective," GREDEG Working Papers 2020-13, Groupe de REcherche en Droit, Economie, Gestion (GREDEG CNRS), Université Côte d'Azur, France.

    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. Patrice Bougette & Oliver Budzinski & Frédéric Marty, 2019. "Exploitative Abuse and Abuse of Economic Dependence: What Can We Learn From an Industrial Organization Approach?," Revue d'économie politique, Dalloz, vol. 129(2), pages 261-286.
    2. Thierry Kirat & Frédéric Marty, 2021. "The late emerging consensus among American economists on antitrust laws in the 2nd New Deal (1935-1941)," Post-Print halshs-03261721, HAL.
    3. Agamirova, Maria (Агамирова, Мария) & Dzagurova, Natalia (Дзагурова, Наталия), 2014. "Incentives for cooperative-specific investments from court decisions to the theoretical analysis [Стимулы Для Осуществления Кооперативных Специфических Инвестиций: От Судебных Решений К Теоретическ," Ekonomicheskaya Politika / Economic Policy, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, vol. 4, pages 79-97.
    4. Oliver Budzinski, 2009. "Modern Industrial Economics and Competition Policy: Open Problems and Possible Limits," Working Papers 93/09, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    5. Cao, Siying, 2022. "Quantifying Economic Reasoning in Court: Judge Economics Sophistication and Pro-business Orientation," Working Papers 321, The University of Chicago Booth School of Business, George J. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State.
    6. Thierry Kirat & Frédéric Marty, 2020. "The Late Emerging Consensus Among American Economists on Antitrust Laws in the Second New Deal (1935-1941) (Revised Version)," CIRANO Working Papers 2020s-46, CIRANO.
    7. Thierry Kirat & Frédéric Marty, 2019. "The Late Emerging Consensus Among American Economists on Antitrust Laws in the Second New Deal," CIRANO Working Papers 2019s-12, CIRANO.
    8. 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.
    9. Nicola Giocoli, 2015. "Old lady charm: explaining the persistent appeal of Chicago antitrust," Journal of Economic Methodology, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(1), pages 96-122, March.
    10. Joshua D. Wright, 2010. "The Chicago School, Transaction Cost Economics, and Antitrust," Chapters, in: Peter G. Klein & Michael E. Sykuta (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Transaction Cost Economics, chapter 23, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    11. MacLeod, W. Bentley, 2011. "Great Expectations: Law, Employment Contracts, and Labor Market Performance," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 18, pages 1591-1696, Elsevier.
    12. Budzinski, Oliver, 2012. "Würde eine unabhängige europäische Wettbewerbsbehörde eine bessere Wettbewerbspolitik machen?," Ilmenau Economics Discussion Papers 78, Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute of Economics.
    13. Thierry Kirat & Frédéric Marty, 2021. "How Law and Economics Was Marketed in a Hostile World: the institutionalization of the field in the United States from the immediate post-war period to the Reagan years," Working Papers halshs-03124774, HAL.
    14. Valentiny, Pál & Antal-Pomázi, Krisztina, 2023. "Versenyközgazdászok [Competition economists]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(6), pages 647-671.
    15. Oliver Budzinski, 2010. "An Institutional Analysis of the Enforcement Problems in Merger Control," Working Papers 101/10, University of Southern Denmark, Department of Sociology, Environmental and Business Economics.
    16. Hugues Bouthinon-Dumas & Frédéric Marty, 2012. "Cartel and Monopoly Policy," Chapters, in: Michael Dietrich & Jackie Krafft (ed.), Handbook on the Economics and Theory of the Firm, chapter 34, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    17. Jürgen-Peter Kretschmer, 2014. "How to deal with resale price maintenance: What can we learn from empirical results?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 38(2), pages 343-368, October.
    18. Anastasia Shastitko, 2018. "Empirical assessment of the role of economic analysis in the Russian antitrust: Why is economic analysis used?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 45(2), pages 313-330, April.
    19. 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.
    20. Budzinski Oliver & Kuchinke Björn A., 2012. "Deal or No Deal? Consensual Arrangements as an Instrument of European Competition Policy," Review of Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 63(3), pages 265-292, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Chicago School; Consumer Welfare; Monopolization; Efficiency; Antitrust; politique de concurrence; bien-être du consommateur; Ecole de Chicago; efficience; abus de position dominante;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K21 - Law and Economics - - Regulation and Business Law - - - Antitrust Law
    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:hal:wpaper:halshs-01027432. 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: CCSD (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/ .

    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.