IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/scerev/doi10.1086-682018.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Merger Regulation Became Unreasonable and How to Fix It

Author

Listed:
  • Sheldon Kimmel

Abstract

The Clayton Act has been misread as condemning any merger that sufficiently lessens competition in a market, regardless of how greatly it benefits society as a whole. This paper shows that Brown Shoe's introduction of that narrow focus on damage in a market (regardless of the extent of benefits elsewhere) was based on a factual error: Brown Shoe misread a congressional report that was the only source it gave for its erroneous view that Congress did not "adopt a definition of the word 'substantially'" for the Act. On the contrary, we show that in 1950 Congress reenacted the Act's § 7 as "defined by … International Shoe," including International Shoe's view that the Act's word "substantially" banned only mergers that injure the general public. Later Courts and Congresses have not revised this standard. Merger regulation should be made reasonable by overturning Brown Shoe's error since its misreading of the Act necessarily opposes the use of mergers in transferring resources from existing markets into new markets, making it harder to develop new markets, paradoxically restraining the commerce that antitrust laws claim to protect.

Suggested Citation

  • Sheldon Kimmel, 2015. "How Merger Regulation Became Unreasonable and How to Fix It," Supreme Court Economic Review, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(1), pages 181-205.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucp:scerev:doi:10.1086/682018
    DOI: 10.1086/682018
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/682018
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/682018
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/682018?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucp:scerev:doi:10.1086/682018. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/SCER .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.