Neo-Brandeisians and Marxists Unite!: Reevaluating the Nature of Power and Markets in Competition Policy

IF 0.5 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Anthony Pahnke
{"title":"Neo-Brandeisians and Marxists Unite!: Reevaluating the Nature of Power and Markets in Competition Policy","authors":"Anthony Pahnke","doi":"10.1080/07393148.2022.2092826","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article engages ongoing policy debates concerning the relationship between concentrated economic power, democracy, and the rule of law, focusing on competition policy – known in the United States as Anti-Trust law. I analyze how Neo-Brandeisian jurists and advocates (who are named after the late, Progressive-Era U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis), have raised critical concerns in their critiques of how Chicago School jurists have conceived of and deployed the concept of “consumer welfare.” As I argue, the crux of the Neo-Brandeisian intervention concerns the need to reevaluate the appropriate relationship between governments and markets. Yet, as I also explore, Neo-Brandeisians err in their depiction of market dynamics and the place of labor within them. To address these problems, I incorporate insights from Marxist legal studies and political economy. I present my argument in the historical evolution of competition policy, highlighting how one of its principal elements has been a concern with challenging concentrated economic power. My discussion highlights how a revised standard for competition policy, especially with respect to promoting democracy, is possible from synthesizing insights from Neo-Brandeisians with Marxists.","PeriodicalId":46114,"journal":{"name":"New Political Science","volume":"44 1","pages":"361 - 376"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07393148.2022.2092826","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract This article engages ongoing policy debates concerning the relationship between concentrated economic power, democracy, and the rule of law, focusing on competition policy – known in the United States as Anti-Trust law. I analyze how Neo-Brandeisian jurists and advocates (who are named after the late, Progressive-Era U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandeis), have raised critical concerns in their critiques of how Chicago School jurists have conceived of and deployed the concept of “consumer welfare.” As I argue, the crux of the Neo-Brandeisian intervention concerns the need to reevaluate the appropriate relationship between governments and markets. Yet, as I also explore, Neo-Brandeisians err in their depiction of market dynamics and the place of labor within them. To address these problems, I incorporate insights from Marxist legal studies and political economy. I present my argument in the historical evolution of competition policy, highlighting how one of its principal elements has been a concern with challenging concentrated economic power. My discussion highlights how a revised standard for competition policy, especially with respect to promoting democracy, is possible from synthesizing insights from Neo-Brandeisians with Marxists.
新布兰代斯主义者和马克思主义者联合起来!重新评估竞争政策中权力和市场的性质
本文关注集中经济权力、民主和法治之间关系的持续政策辩论,重点关注竞争政策——在美国被称为反托拉斯法。我分析了新布兰代斯主义的法学家和倡导者(以进步时代美国最高法院大法官路易斯·布兰代斯的名字命名)如何在他们对芝加哥学派法学家如何构思和部署“消费者福利”概念的批评中提出了关键的关注。正如我所说,新布兰代斯干预主义的关键在于重新评估政府与市场之间适当关系的必要性。然而,正如我所探究的,新布兰代斯主义者在描述市场动态和劳动力在其中的地位时犯了错误。为了解决这些问题,我结合了马克思主义法律研究和政治经济学的见解。我将从竞争政策的历史演变中阐述我的观点,强调竞争政策的一个主要因素是如何关注对集中经济权力的挑战。我的讨论强调了如何通过综合新布兰代斯主义者和马克思主义者的见解来修订竞争政策的标准,特别是在促进民主方面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
New Political Science
New Political Science POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
16.70%
发文量
53
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信