产出-福利谬论:现代反垄断悖论

J. Newman
{"title":"产出-福利谬论:现代反垄断悖论","authors":"J. Newman","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3866725","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A fallacy lies at the core of modern antitrust. The ascendance of the consumer welfare standard is a story often told. Yet existing narratives overlook the pivotal role that output has played--and continues to play--in shaping the contemporary antitrust enterprise. That role has gone unnoticed by most observers, but the antitrust orthodoxy correctly observes that output has become the \"Holy Grail,\" the \"touchstone,\" and the \"sine qua non\" of antitrust. Bork, Posner, Easterbrook, and their intellectual brethren uniformly insisted that output should be the exclusive criterion for analysis, a position premised on the assumption that output effects are a viable stand-in for welfare effects. This output–welfare framework entered mainstream discourse, was endorsed by leading scholars and enforcement authorities, and was outcome-determinative in the Supreme Court’s recent Ohio v. American Express opinion. This Article undertakes the first systematic evaluation of the widely assumed link between output and welfare. Under sustained scrutiny, the outputist paradigm breaks down. A wide variety of antitrust-relevant conduct pushes output and welfare in opposite, conflicting, or disconnected directions. Moreover, output-based analysis is often unworkable in markets—for labor, social networking, online search, and more—that are of particular interest to contemporary antitrust. Recognizing the Output–Welfare Fallacy offers substantial benefits for antitrust analysis. Outputist judicial decisions, which rest on a fundamental illogic, can safely be jettisoned. Market power can best be defined as the power to control competition, instead of power to profitably reduce output. Plaintiffs need not demonstrate an output reduction to carry the initial burden of proof. Conversely, defendants need not prove an output increase to make out a valid procompetitive justification. Moving beyond the narrow confines of output-based analysis thus enables the application of a more coherent, administrable, and efficient antitrust framework.","PeriodicalId":231496,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Law & Economics: Public Law (Topic)","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Output-Welfare Fallacy: A Modern Antitrust Paradox\",\"authors\":\"J. Newman\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.3866725\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"A fallacy lies at the core of modern antitrust. The ascendance of the consumer welfare standard is a story often told. Yet existing narratives overlook the pivotal role that output has played--and continues to play--in shaping the contemporary antitrust enterprise. That role has gone unnoticed by most observers, but the antitrust orthodoxy correctly observes that output has become the \\\"Holy Grail,\\\" the \\\"touchstone,\\\" and the \\\"sine qua non\\\" of antitrust. Bork, Posner, Easterbrook, and their intellectual brethren uniformly insisted that output should be the exclusive criterion for analysis, a position premised on the assumption that output effects are a viable stand-in for welfare effects. This output–welfare framework entered mainstream discourse, was endorsed by leading scholars and enforcement authorities, and was outcome-determinative in the Supreme Court’s recent Ohio v. American Express opinion. This Article undertakes the first systematic evaluation of the widely assumed link between output and welfare. Under sustained scrutiny, the outputist paradigm breaks down. A wide variety of antitrust-relevant conduct pushes output and welfare in opposite, conflicting, or disconnected directions. Moreover, output-based analysis is often unworkable in markets—for labor, social networking, online search, and more—that are of particular interest to contemporary antitrust. Recognizing the Output–Welfare Fallacy offers substantial benefits for antitrust analysis. Outputist judicial decisions, which rest on a fundamental illogic, can safely be jettisoned. Market power can best be defined as the power to control competition, instead of power to profitably reduce output. Plaintiffs need not demonstrate an output reduction to carry the initial burden of proof. Conversely, defendants need not prove an output increase to make out a valid procompetitive justification. Moving beyond the narrow confines of output-based analysis thus enables the application of a more coherent, administrable, and efficient antitrust framework.\",\"PeriodicalId\":231496,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Law & Economics: Public Law (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-06-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Law & Economics: Public Law (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3866725\",\"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.3866725","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

现代反垄断的核心是一个谬论。消费者福利标准的优势是一个经常被提及的故事。然而,现有的叙述忽视了产出在塑造当代反垄断事业方面曾经(并将继续)发挥的关键作用。大多数观察家都没有注意到这一作用,但反垄断的正统观点正确地观察到,产出已成为反垄断的“圣杯”、“试金石”和“必要条件”。博克、波斯纳、伊斯特布鲁克和他们的知识分子兄弟一致坚持,产出应该是分析的唯一标准,这一立场的前提是,产出效应是福利效应的可行替代品。这种产出-福利框架进入了主流话语,得到了主要学者和执法当局的认可,并在最高法院最近的俄亥俄州诉美国运通案的判决中起到了决定结果的作用。本文首次系统地评估了被广泛假定的产出与福利之间的联系。在持续的审视下,输出主义范式崩溃了。各种各样的反垄断相关行为将产出和福利推向相反的、相互冲突的或不相关的方向。此外,基于产出的分析在劳动力、社交网络、在线搜索等市场中通常是行不通的,而这些都是当代反垄断特别感兴趣的。认识到产出-福利谬误为反垄断分析提供了实质性的好处。建立在根本不合逻辑基础上的输出主义司法判决,完全可以被抛弃。市场力量最好被定义为控制竞争的力量,而不是有利可图地减少产出的力量。原告不需要证明产出减少来承担最初的举证责任。相反,被告不需要证明产出增加就能得出一个有效的有利于竞争的理由。因此,超越基于输出的分析的狭窄范围,可以应用更连贯、更易于管理和更有效的反垄断框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Output-Welfare Fallacy: A Modern Antitrust Paradox
A fallacy lies at the core of modern antitrust. The ascendance of the consumer welfare standard is a story often told. Yet existing narratives overlook the pivotal role that output has played--and continues to play--in shaping the contemporary antitrust enterprise. That role has gone unnoticed by most observers, but the antitrust orthodoxy correctly observes that output has become the "Holy Grail," the "touchstone," and the "sine qua non" of antitrust. Bork, Posner, Easterbrook, and their intellectual brethren uniformly insisted that output should be the exclusive criterion for analysis, a position premised on the assumption that output effects are a viable stand-in for welfare effects. This output–welfare framework entered mainstream discourse, was endorsed by leading scholars and enforcement authorities, and was outcome-determinative in the Supreme Court’s recent Ohio v. American Express opinion. This Article undertakes the first systematic evaluation of the widely assumed link between output and welfare. Under sustained scrutiny, the outputist paradigm breaks down. A wide variety of antitrust-relevant conduct pushes output and welfare in opposite, conflicting, or disconnected directions. Moreover, output-based analysis is often unworkable in markets—for labor, social networking, online search, and more—that are of particular interest to contemporary antitrust. Recognizing the Output–Welfare Fallacy offers substantial benefits for antitrust analysis. Outputist judicial decisions, which rest on a fundamental illogic, can safely be jettisoned. Market power can best be defined as the power to control competition, instead of power to profitably reduce output. Plaintiffs need not demonstrate an output reduction to carry the initial burden of proof. Conversely, defendants need not prove an output increase to make out a valid procompetitive justification. Moving beyond the narrow confines of output-based analysis thus enables the application of a more coherent, administrable, and efficient antitrust framework.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信