Antitrust in American History: Law, Institutions, and Economic Performance
Posted on May 6, 2019 by Yves Smith
By Mark Glick, Professor, University of Utah Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website
The canonical antitrust principles developed by the Chicago School have dominated the thinking of both judges and the federal agencies that enforce the antitrust laws in the United States for almost four decades. The Chicago School assumed that reduced regulation and more permissive antitrust enforcement would unleash a period of big business efficiency, innovation and growth. My paper shows that these predictions were illusory. Instead, the evidence is that economic performance, including growth, productivity, employment, and income equality were superior in the period just before the rise of the Chicago School.
My new working paper reevaluates the entire history of the antitrust laws and shows that its dramatic paradigm changes were part of larger policy regime transformations. It examines how the economic and political power of competing economic classes and groups in specific historical contexts shaped these dominant policy regimes. The dominant policy determined the legitimacy and limits of the antitrust narrative in every economic era. For example, today, the scholars that are part of the New Brandeis School of antitrust that thoroughly reject Chicago School assumptions have been labelled as proponents of hipster antitrust, a clear effort to deprive one side in the current antitrust debate of legitimacy. In contrast, the post-Chicago school of industrial organization, economists who are critical of many of the Chicago School economic tenets, have been careful not to deviate from such core Chicago School concepts as the exceptionally narrow consumer welfare goal for antitrust enforcement.
My paper considers six economic epochs: the Gilded Age, the Progressive Era, the New Deal, the golden age of post-World War II capitalism, the crisis of the 1970s and the age of neoliberalism. Associated with these economic eras are three distinct antitrust policy regimes: the laissez-faire regime of the Gilded Age and the Progressive Era, the New Deal policy that lasted from the 1930s to the 1970s, and neoliberalism, of which the Chicago school is a component, and which we are living through today.
The first federal antitrust law, the Sherman Act of 1890, passed during the Gilded Age, was a political compromise, enacted before big business had achieved political dominance. The ambiguity in the Acts language reflected this political stalemate. However, as revisionist historians like Gabriel Kolko have shown, by the Progressive Era, big business had achieved the clout to shape the other two major antitrust acts, the Clayton Act and the Federal Trade Commission Act, securing their economic interests and heading off potentially more radical legislation. The New Deal, especially in its latter years, represented a revolutionary change in policy regime. The laws passed during the New Deal reduced the income and power of big business and finance, strengthened union power, raised wages, and reduced income inequality. My paper argues that this policy contributed to the remarkable period of economic prosperity that the US experienced at that time.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/05/antitrust-in-american-history-law-institutions-and-economic-performance.html
elleng
(130,861 posts)BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)elleng
(130,861 posts)and wanting to see some/more.
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)would need to sell Whole Foods under anti-trust laws. Good stuff if you haven't listened to her.
elleng
(130,861 posts)I was 'into' railroads, so infrastructure was my thing. What's happened recently is beyond awful.
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)Excerpt: But the landscape has since changed, her post reads, where tech giants have grown by using mergers and proprietary marketplaces, among other actions, to limit competition and subsequently wield immense influence and control that she says threaten to undermine business, innovation and democracy.
Warren vowed, if elected to office, that she would make significant structural changes to the tech sector through two initiativesone that would involve legislation to limit a given companys scope, and another to appoint regulators to unwind existing mergers.
https://licpost.com/elizabeth-warren-unveils-proposal-to-break-up-big-tech-like-amazon-ahead-of-long-island-city-appearance
I actually was among ### freight rail regulators, largely mergers, wherein I learned something(s) about anti-trust!
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)more about it.
You are an attorney, elleng?
elleng
(130,861 posts)I'm a retired attorney, worked for the Interstate Commerce Commission from 1978-2001 (or 2, not sure which!) during which time I was on staff in one of the offices reviewing applications for major rail mergers. I worked on UP/MP/WP, and others.
SO we evaluated complex transactions proposed and opposed by well-funded carriers, as well as shippers, labor, and public entities, and I learned to evaluate effects on competition and operations, and proposals to ameliorate such.
It was very interesting, surprising me as I'd never thought of doing such work!
BeckyDem
(8,361 posts)Comment away on policies that involve anti-trust, b/c although Warren speaks about the complexities more than others, it is not a simple issue with one or two explanations.
elleng
(130,861 posts)ONE of the major issues, in fact may be the first analysts attend to, is WHAT is the RELEVANT MARKET! More on this later.