The Chicago School of antitrust has benefitted from a great deal of law office history, written by admiring advocates rather than more dispassionate observers. This essay attempts a more neutral stance, looking at the ideology, political impulses, and economics that produced the Chicago School of antitrust policy and that account for its durability.
The origins of the Chicago School lie in a strong commitment to libertarianism and nonintervention. Economic models of perfect competition best suited these goals. The early strength of the Chicago School of antitrust was that it provided simple, convincing answers to everything that was wrong with antitrust policy in the 1960s, when antitrust was characterized by over-enforcement, poor quality economics or none at all, and many internal contradictions.
The Chicago School’s greatest weakness is that it did not keep up. Its leading advocates either spurned or ignored important developments in economics that gave a better accounting of an economy that was increasingly characterized by significant product differentiation, rapid innovation, networking, and strategic behavior. The Chicago School’s initial claim was that newer models of the economy lacked testability. That argument lost its credibility, however, as industrial economics experienced an empirical renaissance, nearly all of it based on various models of imperfect competition. Students getting PhDs in economics increasingly abandoned perfect competition as a useful starting point.
What kept Chicago alive was the financial support of firms and others who stood to profit from less intervention. Properly designed antitrust enforcement is a public good. Its beneficiaries – consumers — are individually small, numerous, scattered, and diverse. Those who stand to profit from nonintervention were fewer in number, individually much more powerful, and much more united in their message. As a result, the Chicago School went from being a model of enlightened economic policy to a powerful tool of regulatory capture.
Featured News
Canadian Breadmakers Settle Price-Fixing Lawsuit
Jul 25, 2024 by
CPI
EssilorLuxottica Open to Meta as Shareholder, Says CEO Francesco Milleri
Jul 25, 2024 by
CPI
California Supreme Court Upholds Proposition 22, Securing Independent Contractor Status for Uber and Lyft Drivers
Jul 25, 2024 by
CPI
Paramount Global Investor Sues to Block Skydance Media Merger
Jul 25, 2024 by
CPI
Software Vendors Win Class Action Status in Antitrust Case Against CDK Global
Jul 25, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – International Trade & Antitrust
Jul 26, 2024 by
CPI
What is Wrong with the WTO Discipline on Subsidies?
Jul 26, 2024 by
CPI
The Abiding Tension Between Trade Remedy Law and Antitrust
Jul 26, 2024 by
CPI
Trade and Antitrust: An End to Isolationism
Jul 26, 2024 by
CPI
International Trade Law and Domestic Regulation of Generative Artificial Intelligence: Divergent Approaches?
Jul 26, 2024 by
CPI