Old lady charm: explaining the persistent appeal of Chicago antitrust

Giocoli, Nicola (2012): Old lady charm: explaining the persistent appeal of Chicago antitrust.

Abstract

The paper deals with the mysterious persistence of the Chicago approach as the main analytical engine driving antitrust enforcement in the US. While the approach has been almost completely replaced in contemporary industrial economics by the so-called Post-Chicago view, with its superior game-theoretic toolbox, Chicago arguments still permeate antitrust case law at all judicial level, including the Supreme Court’s. Chicago rise to dominance in US courtrooms has allegedly been due to the superiority of its economic analysis. It is thus legitimate to ask why the analytical edge of the Post-Chicago approach has failed to produce the same outcome. Answering this kind of questions is crucial to understand how economists persuade, i.e., how economic arguments may be accepted and applied by policy- or law-makers. The paper offers a series of explanations, most of which inspired by the chapters in Robert Pitofsky’s collection How the Chicago School Overshot the Mark (OUP 2008). It is argued that none of these answers is completely exhaustive, though each may account for a bit of the story.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Chicago school; antitrust; Post-Chicago approach
• Subjects: B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B2 - History of Economic Thought since 1925 > B21 - Microeconomics; K - Law and Economics > K2 - Regulation and Business Law > K21 - Antitrust Law; B - History of Economic Thought, Methodology, and Heterodox Approaches > B1 - History of Economic Thought through 1925 > B13 - Neoclassical through 1925 (Austrian, Marshallian, Walrasian, Stockholm School); L - Industrial Organization > L4 - Antitrust Issues and Policies > L40 - General

References

AREEDA P. & TURNER D. 1975, “Predatory pricing and related practices under Section 2 of the Sherman Act”, Harvard Law Review, 88, 697-733.

BORK R. 1978, The Antitrust Paradox. A Policy at War with Itself, Free Press.

BOWMAN W. 1957, “Tying arrangements and the leverage problem”, Yale Law Journal, 67, 19-36.

COATE M. & FISCHER J. 2001, “Can Post-Chicago economics survive Daubert?”, Akron Law Review, 34, 795-852.

CUCINOTTA A., PARDOLESI R. & VAN DEN BERGH R. (EDS.) 2002, Post-Chicago Developments in Antitrust Law, Elgar, Cheltenham (UK).

DEVLIN A. & JACOBS M. 2010, “Antitrust divergence and the limits of economics”, Northwestern University Law Review, 104 (1), 253-291.

EAGCP 2005, “An economic approach to Article 82”, Report of the Economic Advisory Group on Competition Policy, http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/competition/economist/eagcp_july_21_05.pdf

ELHAUGE E. 2007, “Harvard, Not Chicago: Which Antitrust School Drives Recent Supreme Court Decisions?”, Competition Policy International , 3, 59-79.

ELHAUGE E. 2009, “Tying, bundled discounts, and the death of the single monopoly theory”, Harvard Law Review, 123 (2), 397-481.

FISHER F. 1989, “Games economists play: a noncooperative view”, RAND Journal of Economics, 20, 113-124.

FOX E. 2008, “The efficiency paradox”, in Pitofsky R. (ed.) 2008, 77-88.

GIOCOLI N. 2009, “Competition vs. property rights: American antitrust law, the Freiburg School and the early years of European competition policy”, Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 5, 747-786.

GIOCOLI N. 2011, “When low is no good: predatory pricing and US antitrust law (1950-1980)”, European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 18 (5), 777-806.

GIOCOLI N. 2012, “Games judges don’t play: predatory pricing and strategic reasoning in US antitrust”, Supreme Court Economic Review, forthcoming.

GREENFIELD L.B. & MATHESON D.J. 2009, “Rules versus standards and the antitrust jurisprudence of Justice Breyer”, Antitrust, 23 (3), 87-91.

GRIMES W.S. 2008, “The Sylvania free-rider justification for downstream-power vertical restraints: truth or invitation for pretext?”, in: Pitosfky ed. (2008), 181-195.

HOVENKAMP H. 1996, “The Areeda-Turner treatise in antitrust analysis”, The Antitrust Bulletin, 41, 815-842.

HOVENKAMP H. 2005, The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution, Harvard UP.

HOVENKAMP H. 2008, “The Harvard and Chicago Schools and the dominant firm”, in: Pitosfky ed. (2008), 109-122.

JACOBS M.S. 1995, “An essay on the normative foundations of antitrust economics”, North Carolina Law Review, 74, 219-266.

KAUPER T.E. 2008, “Influence of conservative economic analysis on the development of antitrust law”, in: Pitosfky ed. (2008), 40-50.

KIRKWOOD J.B. & LANDE R.H. 2008, “The Chicago School’s foundation is flawed: antitrust protects consumers, not efficiency”, in: Pitosfky ed. (2008), 89-97.

KOBAYASHI B.H. 2010, “The law and economics of predatory pricing”, in: Hylton K.N. (ed.), Antitrust Law and Economics, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, Ch.6.

KOVACIC W. 2007, “The intellectual DNA of modern U.S. competition law for dominant firm conduct: the Chicago/Harvard double helix”, Columbia Business Law Review, 1, 1-81.

KRATTENMAKER T.G. & SALOP S.C. 1986, “Anticompetitive exclusion: raising rivals’ costs to achieve power over price”, Yale Law Journal, 96, 209-293.

KREPS D. & WILSON R. 1982, “Reputation and imperfect information”, Journal of Economic Theory, 27, 253-79.

LANDE R.H. 1989, “Chicago’s false foundation: wealth transfers (not just efficiency) should guide antitrust”, Antitrust Law Journal, 58, 631-644.

LAO M. 2008, “Free riding: an overstated, and unconvincing, explanation for resale price maintenance”, in: Pitosfky ed. (2008), 196-216.

LEVIN N.G. 2005, “The Nomos and Narrative of Matsushita”, Fordham Law Review, 73, 1627-1710.

MANKIW N.G. 2006, “The macroeconomist as scientist and engineer”, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20 (4), 29-46.

MARTIN S. 2007, “Remembrance of things past: antitrust, ideology, and the development of industrial economics”, in: Ghosal V. & Stennek J. (eds.), The Political Economy of Antitrust, Elsevier, 25-57.

MCGEE J.S. 1958, “Predatory price cutting: the Standard Oil (N.J.) case”, Journal of Law and Economics, 1, 137-169.

MCNULTY P. 1968, “Economic theory and the meaning of competition”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82, 639-656.

MILGROM P. & ROBERTS J. 1982a, “Limit pricing and entry under incomplete information: an equilibrium analysis”, Econometrica, 50, 443-459.

MILGROM P. & ROBERTS J. 1982b, “Predation, reputation and entry deterrence”, Journal of Economic Theory, 27, 280-312.

PELTZMAN S. 1991, “The Handbook of Industrial Organization: a review article”, Journal of Political Economy, 99 (1), 201-217.

PITOFSKY R. (ED.) 2008, How the Chicago School Overshot the Mark. The Effect of Conservative Economic Analysis on U.S. Antitrust, Oxford UP, Oxford.

POSNER R. 1981, “The next in the antitrust treatment of restricted distribution: per se legality”, University of Chicago Law Review, 48, 6-26.

POSNER R. 2001, Antitrust Law. Second Edition, Chicago UP (first ed. 1976).

RUBINSTEIN A. 2006, “Dilemmas of an economic theorist”, Econometrica, 74, 865-883.

SALOP S.C. 2008, “Economic analysis of exclusionary vertical conduct: where Chicago has overshot the mark”, in: Pitosfky ed. (2008), 141-155.

SCHERER F.M. 2008, “Conservative economics and antitrust: a variety of influences”, in: Pitosfky ed. (2008), 30-39.

SCHMALENSEE R. 2008, “Thoughts on the Chicago legacy in U.S. antitrust”, in Pitofsky R. (ed.) 2008, 11-23.

SCHMALENSEE R. & WILLIG R.D. (EDS.) 1989, The Handbook of Industrial Economics, North-Holland, Amsterdam.

TELSER L. 1960, “Why should manufacturers want fair trade?”, Journal of Law and Economics, 3. (October), 86-105.

TIROLE J. 1988, The Theory of Industrial Organization, MIT Press, Cambridge (Mass).