Institutional Design and Federal Antitrust Enforcement Agencies: Renovation or Revolution?
Michael McFalls, Sep 11, 2014
Institutional design, properly defined, both circumscribes and defines the practice of antitrust law in the United States. The structure of antitrust law and enforcement in the United States reflects so many disparate strands of political thought and expression that it seems almost impossible that it could function, much less cohere. But that very mixture of currents and cross-currents is quintessentially American — and keeps the importance of institutional design very much alive and significant in U.S. antitrust law. And although fundamental reinvention is unlikely, incremental changes are both possible and desirable, particularly those within the discretion of the enforcement agencies themselves. Below, we discuss what kinds of changes may be useful for the enforcement agencies to consider.
Featured News
Spanish Minister Defends Record as Flood Crisis Casts Shadow on EU Role
Nov 22, 2024 by
CPI
UK Antitrust Regulator Signals Flexibility in Merger Reviews to Boost Economic Growth
Nov 21, 2024 by
CPI
US Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal in Google Antitrust Records Dispute
Nov 21, 2024 by
CPI
Matt Gaetz Withdraws from Consideration for US Attorney General Amid Controversy
Nov 21, 2024 by
CPI
Morocco Fines US Pharma Firm Viatris Over Merger Notification Breach
Nov 21, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Remedies Revisited
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Fixing the Fix: Updating Policy on Merger Remedies
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
Methodology Matters: The 2017 FTC Remedies Study
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
U.S. v. AT&T: Five Lessons for Vertical Merger Enforcement
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI
The Search for Antitrust Remedies in Tech Leads Beyond Antitrust
Oct 30, 2024 by
CPI