Document Type

Article

Publication Date

2019

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1017/S000768051900151X

Abstract

A central question raised by the recent surge of neo-Brandeisian scholarship and advocacy is whether the nascent movement will deliver any form of lasting change to antitrust. In his essay for this issue of Business History Review, Daniel Crane is doubtful. He argues that critiques of the Chicago School are often simplistic and misunderstand its legacy, which includes institutionalizing economic theory in antitrust analysis in ways that even its post-Chicago critics absorbed and built on. The “consumer welfare” standard, Crane notes, still draws wide support across the ideological spectrum and may be capacious enough to accommodate a variety of approaches to enforcement. While critics of the Chicago School abound, there is “not an obvious replacement in sight” (p. 760). If anything, Crane observes, the moment presents an opportunity for post-Chicago scholars to “make significant inroads” in lieu of the “barbarians at the gate” (p. 775).

Disciplines

Antitrust and Trade Regulation | Law

Comments

© 2020 The President and Fellows of Harvard College. This article has been published in the Business History Review and is free to view and download for private research and study only. Not for re-distribution or re-use.

Download

Share

COinS