IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/asr/journl/v9y2019ispecialp93-109.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The US antitrust jurisprudence through the lens of Chicago School and the Transaction Costs Economics Abstract: In the mid-70s, the US antitrust jurisprudence finally embraced the economic approaches developed at the University of Chicago on the 30s. The Chicago School of Economics has as its main characteristic the defence of the private economy and of a limited intervention of the government, which underlies the idea that individual freedoms depend on the existence of a system based on private initiative and market economy, affirming the interdependence of capitalism and democracy. This School was fiercely against the excessive intervention of competition authorities and courts in competition, to which attributed as final goal purpose efficiency maximization. From a methodological point of view, Chicago School will be renowned by the importance of neoclassical pricetheory and empirical analysis. Later, within New Institutional Economics, will rise another economic analysis, such us Transaction Costs Economics and Property Rights Theory, that even though receiving minor attention from the literature, being until now strangely excluded from the economic and legal mainstream of the competition, will also inspire Antitrust Law. The Transaction Costs Economics will demonstrate that the transactions that make up the market are conditioned by the constraints of behaviour and information, giving rise to transaction costs that make markets imperfect. The institutions in this School are, therefore, structures that, by influencing individuals' behaviour, mitigate market imperfections, becoming indispensable in economic analysis. The analysis of these economic approaches will reveal that both gave the utmost importance to transaction costs, as Chicago School, without explicitly mentioning transaction costs, also considered it in antitrust analysis. In this paper, we aim at demonstrating that this proximity between Chicago School and Transaction Costs Economics is reflected in US antitrust jurisprudence. Therefore, it is pertinent to begin by summarizing the main arguments developed by these economic theories, which later received merits by the courts, thus making more evident the effect they had on US antitrust jurisprudence, often ignored by literature. As we will conclude the US antitrust analysis is performed by the Courts through lens of Chicago School and Transaction Costs Economics. Classification-JEL: K22 Keywords: Chicago School, antitrust jurisprudence, Transaction Cost Economics, Property Rights Theory

Author

Listed:
  • Sónia de Carvalho

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Sónia de Carvalho, 2019. "The US antitrust jurisprudence through the lens of Chicago School and the Transaction Costs Economics Abstract: In the mid-70s, the US antitrust jurisprudence finally embraced the economic approaches ," Juridical Tribune - Review of Comparative and International Law, Bucharest Academy of Economic Studies, vol. 9(Special), pages 93-109, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:asr:journl:v:9:y:2019:i:special:p:93-109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://tribunajuridica.eu/arhiva/An9vS/7.%20Sona%20de%20Carvalho.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ward S. Bowman & Jr., 1952. "Resale Price Maintenance-A Monopoly Problem," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 25, pages 141-141.
    2. R. H. Coase, 2013. "The Problem of Social Cost," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 56(4), pages 837-877.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John Lynham, 2012. "Ecomarkets For Conservation And Sustainable Development in the Coastal Zone," Working Papers 201218, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Department of Economics.
    2. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    3. christoph Engel, 2005. "Voice over IP. Competition Policy and Regulation," Discussion Paper Series of the Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods 2005_26, Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods.
    4. Maite Cubas‐Díaz & Miguel Ángel Martínez Sedano, 2018. "Measures for Sustainable Investment Decisions and Business Strategy – A Triple Bottom Line Approach," Business Strategy and the Environment, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 16-38, January.
    5. Baumann, Florian, 2015. "Freier Warenverkehr und unverfälschter Wettbewerb in der Europäischen Union: Der Beitrag der europäischen Produkthaftung," DICE Ordnungspolitische Perspektiven 75, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    6. Qiuyue Xia & Lu Li & Jie Dong & Bin Zhang, 2021. "Reduction Effect and Mechanism Analysis of Carbon Trading Policy on Carbon Emissions from Land Use," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(17), pages 1-22, August.
    7. Frans P. Vries & Nick Hanley, 2016. "Incentive-Based Policy Design for Pollution Control and Biodiversity Conservation: A Review," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 687-702, April.
    8. Yu-Jia Ding & Pi-Chu Wu & Yu-Hui Lian, 2020. "Time Series Analysis for the Dynamic Relationship between an Enterprise’s Business Growth and Carbon Emission in Taiwan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-12, July.
    9. Daniel B. Klein, 2015. "Of Its Own Accord: Adam Smith on the Export-Import Bank," Econ Journal Watch, Econ Journal Watch, vol. 12(3), pages 479–487-4, September.
    10. Usher, Dan, 2001. "Personal goods, efficiency and the law," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 17(4), pages 673-703, November.
    11. George Tridimas & Stanley L. Winer, 2018. "On the Definition and Nature of Fiscal Coercion," Carleton Economic Papers 18-09, Carleton University, Department of Economics.
    12. Mario Jametti & Thomas von Ungern-Sternberg, 2005. "Assessing the Efficiency of an Insurance Provider—A Measurement Error Approach," The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Association for the Study of Insurance Economics (The Geneva Association), vol. 30(1), pages 15-34, June.
    13. Stephanie Rosenkranz & Patrick W. Schmitz, 2007. "Can Coasean Bargaining Justify Pigouvian Taxation?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 74(296), pages 573-585, November.
    14. Weisheng Lu & Meng Ye & K.W. Chau & Roger Flanagan, 2018. "The paradoxical nexus between corporate social responsibility and sustainable financial performance: Evidence from the international construction business," Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(5), pages 844-852, September.
    15. Michael A. Clemens, 2016. "Losing our minds? New research directions on skilled emigration and development," International Journal of Manpower, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 37(7), pages 1227-1248, October.
    16. Stefan Ambec & Yann Kervinio, 2016. "Cooperative decision-making for the provision of a locally undesirable facility," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 46(1), pages 119-155, January.
    17. Giampaolo Garzarelli & Matthew Holian, 2014. "Parchment, guns, and the problem of governance," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 27(1), pages 71-80, March.
    18. Liu, Duan & Yu, Nizhou & Wan, Hong, 2022. "Does water rights trading affect corporate investment? The role of resource allocation and risk mitigation channels," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).
    19. Xingrong Hou & Jianmin Zeng & Hong Chen & Li Su, 2019. "The endowment effect in the genes: An exploratory study," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 14(3), pages 293-298, May.
    20. Leschke, Martin, 2015. "Alternativen zur Marktwirtschaft: Ein kritischer Blick auf die Ansätze von Niko Paech und Christian Felber aus Sicht der konstitutionellen Ökonomik," Beiträge zur Jahrestagung 2015 (Bayreuth) 140887, Verein für Socialpolitik, Ausschuss für Wirtschaftssysteme und Institutionenökonomik.

    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:asr:journl:v:9:y:2019:i:special:p:93-109. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Catalin-Silviu Sararu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aseeero.html .

    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.