Skip to main content

1989 | Buch

A Critical Evaluation of the Chicago School of Antitrust Analysis

verfasst von: Ingo L. O. Schmidt, Jan B. Rittaler

Verlag: Springer Netherlands

Buchreihe : Studies in Industrial Organization

insite
SUCHEN

Über dieses Buch

The publication of this clinically analytical and trenchantly insightful volume is felicitously timed. By fortuitous coincidence, it comes at a time when the Chicago School enjoys a high-water mark of acceptance in U.S. legal circles, and at a time when the U.S. merger movement of the 1980s is cresting. It provides a welcome warning against the dangers of translating abstract theories, based on highly restrictive (and unrealistic) assumptions, into facile public policy recommendations. As such the Schmidt/Rittaler study serves as a needed antidote to the currently fashionable predilection to confuse ideology with science. In the Chicago lexicon, the only appropriate policy toward business is a policy of untrammeled laissez-faire. Because there are no market imperfec­ tions (other than government-created or trade-union-generated monopolies), the market can be trusted to regulate economic activity, inexorably meting out appropriate rewards and punishments. In this ideal world, corporate size and power can be safely ignored. After all, corporations become big only only because they are efficient, only because they are productive, only because they have served consumers better than their rivals, and only because no newcomers are good enough to challenge their dominance. Once an industrial giant becomes lethargic and no longer bestows its productive beneficence on society, it will inevitably wither and eventually die. This is the "natural law" that governs economic life. It demands obedience to its rules. It tolerates no interference by the state.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Frontmatter
I. The Perception of Competition as a Dynamic Process
Abstract
Representatives of the Chicago School such as Bork1 view competition as a dynamic process. On the one hand they maintain a certain distance from the static model of neoclassics, whereas, on the other hand, their idea of fictitious equilibrium resembles the one developed by neoclassics:2
If equilibriun were ever reached, the value of marginal product would be the same in all employments — (...) — and the distribution of resources would be ideal.
Ingo L. O. Schmidt, Jan B. Rittaler
II. Premises and Assumptions of the Chicago School’s Concept of Competition
Abstract
The premises and assumptions of the Chicago School were largely not products of the Chicago School but rather of neoclassical price theory. They are used by the Chicago School within the context of simple basic models of price theory (polypoly, monopoly) in order to deduce concrete policy recommendations. Therefore, these premises and assumptions underlying these models have to be discussed in order to evaluate the soundness of the policy implications. The following will deal with this.
Ingo L. O. Schmidt, Jan B. Rittaler
III. Antitrust Theory and Public Policy
Abstract
The Chicago School takes a special view on antitrust policy which is based on the confidence in the long-run effectiveness of the market mechanism, which can be interpreted as laissez-faire liberalism. In the following sections V and VI of this contribution this position will be dealt with in detail.
Ingo L. O. Schmidt, Jan B. Rittaler
IV. The Chicago School’s Approach to Antitrust Theory
Abstract
Consumer welfare as the single goal of antitrust is analyzed by means of neoclassical microeconomics, which means that perfect competition and monopoly serve as standards of reference.1 Neither perfect competition nor monopoly in the structural sense are seen as states that should be reached. They simply serve as a basis from which to depart for the purpose of analysis and thereby should contribute to analytical clarity. The guiding concept of antitrust policy is not an ideal market structure to be reached but the maximization of consumer welfare as a performance criterion.
Ingo L. O. Schmidt, Jan B. Rittaler
V. Evaluating Concentration from the Chicago Point of View
Abstract
The representatives of the Chicago School also take the view that concentration in markets increases the danger of collusion. However, collusion could be easily recognized at once, and, therefore, easily prosecuted. The position of the Harvard School that market concentration is an indication of collusion is criticized by the Chicago School on the grounds that it might discourage competitive conduct that promotes efficiency.1 Firms with a large market share better satisfy the wants of consumers than smaller firms. An increasing degree of concentration means aggressive competitive behavior with prices close to long-run costs.2 Declining concentration would suggest cartelization or monopolistic price behavior, however, that stimulates entry of newcomers because of supra-competitive profits.3
Ingo L. O. Schmidt, Jan B. Rittaler
VI. The Evaluation of Anticompetitive Behavior
Abstract
After having dealt with the problem of concentration in the preceding section, we shall now deal with certain anticompetitive forms of behavior. Explicit or implicit collusion, exclusionary practices, tying arrangements, predatory pricing, and resale price maintenance are at the core of this evaluation.
Ingo L. O. Schmidt, Jan B. Rittaler
VII. A Critical Résumé of the Chicago Approach to Antitrust Policy
Abstract
The Chicago School, which was known in the past largely within the context of monetarism (Karl Brunner, Milton Friedman, Alan Meltzer et al.), has developed a legal and economic approach to antitrust policy during the seventies. This approach is supported by a group of economists and lawyers (Bork, Demsetz, Director, Posner et al.) who have gained considerable influence on U.S. antitrust policy. This is not only shown by the “turnaround” in antitrust policy announced by former Secretary of Justice Smith in 1981 but also by the New Merger Guidelines of 1982/84, the Vertical Restraints Guidelines of 1985, the Antitrust Law Reform Package of 1986, and by the fact that judges on the inofficial “waiting list” to be appointed to the U.S. Federal Supreme Court are Chicago scholars (e.g., Posner).
Ingo L. O. Schmidt, Jan B. Rittaler
Backmatter
Metadaten
Titel
A Critical Evaluation of the Chicago School of Antitrust Analysis
verfasst von
Ingo L. O. Schmidt
Jan B. Rittaler
Copyright-Jahr
1989
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Electronic ISBN
978-94-009-2567-0
Print ISBN
978-94-010-7660-9
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-2567-0