'Competition Overdose': Curing Markets from Themselves? Ten Points for Discussion

The times when competition policy was perceived as an axiomatic, mathematised, highly technical and pretty much non-controversial area of Law & Economics have gone. Over the last decade, competition has become a great theme again. Full of ideological appeals and statements, mindful of their political pedigree, competition law, economics and policy are transitioning from the mechanistic field of microeconomic modelling to the real world of geopolitical chessboards. The new book by two prominent competition law thinkers Maurice E. Stucke and Ariel Ezrachi ‘Competition Overdose: How Free Market Mythology Transformed Us from Citizen Kings to Market Servants’ (Harper Business, USA, 2020, pp. 402) has triggered a vivid discussion over the ever-fading question on the goals of competition law, economics and policy and – more broadly – on the very nature of the multifaceted phenomenon of competition. The book provokes not only thoughts. From its very title, subtitle, name of chapters, normative position, methodological argumentation and the choice of preprint reviewers, across the selection of case studies and to its very writing style, the book is designed to generate discussion. And for the right reasons. The authors aim to raise (or perhaps to refine) the ethical dimension in the otherwise morally neutral phenomenon of economic competition and its regulation. In what follows I articulate ten points for discussion, written as a reflection on the book. The main focus is on analysing the phenomenon of economic competition, and on the ways how this phenomenon should (and should never) be regulated.