回到学校:芝加哥学派和新布兰迪斯学派的正确之处

G. Werden
{"title":"回到学校:芝加哥学派和新布兰迪斯学派的正确之处","authors":"G. Werden","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3247116","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The New Brandeis School renews debate on two fundamental antitrust policy questions: 1) what source of wisdom or set of values should inform antitrust rules; and 2) what criterion should govern antitrust case adjudication. In our view, the Chicago School’s answer to the first question was right; economics, rather than populist politics, should guide the formulation of antitrust rules. On the second question, we agree with the New Brandeis School that US antitrust is too focused on bottom-line indicators of market performance; the result has been to make antitrust both more complex and less effective in protecting competition.","PeriodicalId":231496,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Law & Economics: Public Law (Topic)","volume":"112 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Back to School: What the Chicago School and New Brandeis School Get Right\",\"authors\":\"G. Werden\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3247116\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The New Brandeis School renews debate on two fundamental antitrust policy questions: 1) what source of wisdom or set of values should inform antitrust rules; and 2) what criterion should govern antitrust case adjudication. In our view, the Chicago School’s answer to the first question was right; economics, rather than populist politics, should guide the formulation of antitrust rules. On the second question, we agree with the New Brandeis School that US antitrust is too focused on bottom-line indicators of market performance; the result has been to make antitrust both more complex and less effective in protecting competition.\",\"PeriodicalId\":231496,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Law & Economics: Public Law (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"112 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Law & Economics: Public Law (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3247116\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Law & Economics: Public Law (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3247116","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

新布兰迪斯商学院(New Brandeis School)重新引发了关于两个基本反垄断政策问题的辩论:1)反垄断规则应该从何种智慧或价值观来源中获得启示;二是反垄断案件裁决应遵循何种标准。在我们看来,芝加哥学派对第一个问题的回答是正确的;经济,而不是民粹主义政治,应该指导反垄断规则的制定。关于第二个问题,我们同意新布兰迪斯商学院(New Brandeis School)的观点,即美国反垄断过于关注市场表现的底线指标;其结果是,反垄断在保护竞争方面变得更加复杂,效果也更差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Back to School: What the Chicago School and New Brandeis School Get Right
The New Brandeis School renews debate on two fundamental antitrust policy questions: 1) what source of wisdom or set of values should inform antitrust rules; and 2) what criterion should govern antitrust case adjudication. In our view, the Chicago School’s answer to the first question was right; economics, rather than populist politics, should guide the formulation of antitrust rules. On the second question, we agree with the New Brandeis School that US antitrust is too focused on bottom-line indicators of market performance; the result has been to make antitrust both more complex and less effective in protecting competition.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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