IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/wpaper/halshs-04761087.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Managerialism versus free and fair competition: The economists’ aggiornamento on the Sherman Act on the eve of the 1932 elections

Author

Listed:
  • Thierry Kirat

    (CERCRID - Centre de Recherches Critiques sur le Droit - UL2 - Université Lumière - Lyon 2 - UJM - Université Jean Monnet - Saint-Étienne - 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

This contribution discusses the historical background of the Fetter Petition, published in 1932 by a committee of American economists who came together to defend the Sherman Act. Until then, different schools of thought had held conflicting views on the relevance of the Sherman Act from an economic perspective, with some even defending the option of managed competition. The Fetter Petition, however, shows a convergence around the defence of the Sherman Act and support for its stronger enforcement. The paper sheds light on the moment of consensus building among economists around antitrust rules as a result of proposals to reform and amend them between 1928 and 1932. It also draws a parallel between some of the recommendations of the Fetter Petition and the policy pursued by Thurman Arnold from 1938 onwards, and opens a discussion on the contributions of the 1930s debates to current discussions on the theoretical foundations of competition policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Thierry Kirat & Frédéric Marty, 2024. "Managerialism versus free and fair competition: The economists’ aggiornamento on the Sherman Act on the eve of the 1932 elections," Working Papers halshs-04761087, HAL.
    • Handle: RePEc:hal:wpaper:halshs-04761087
    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.

    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-04761087. 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: 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.