Chillin'Competition

Relaxing whilst doing Competition Law is not an Oxymoron

Subversive Readings?

leave a comment »

In reaction to one of my recent papers, a very good friend said that I was a “neo-chicagoan” (friends can be tough…).

This morning, I came accross  a masterpiece of NON-chicagoan scholarship (L. Kaplow, “Antitrust, Law & Economics and the Courts”, (1987) Vol. 50, 4, Law and Contemporary Problems, 181). I thought I should share with you several powerful quotes, with which I fully concur.


The price theory widely hailed by the Chicago School as its heart and soul, although a useful starting point, is in fact the earliest and simplest for of economic analysis of industry”  p.189

Antitrust law is necessarily based on the contrary assumption that courts at times can punish detrimental practices better than markets will” P.192

One of the most widely noted shortcomings of Chicago School antitrust analysis is that it uses static models even when examining effects that are intrinsically dynamic – as in the case of all exclusionary practices …” P.192

[a]ll calls for the rule of reason should be understood as either intentionally or unconsciously disguised attempts to remove the area from antitrust scrutiny” P.196 (I am not sure I 100% agree with this one though)

(Image possibly to copyrights: source here)

Written by Nicolas Petit

20 September 2010 at 2:10 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: