IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jcomle/v7y2011i4p733-774..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Regime Shift In Antitrust Laws, Economics, And Enforcement

Author

Listed:
  • Vivek Ghosal

Abstract

This article empirically models the longer-run, deep-seated shift in intellectual thinking that followed the Chicago School's criticism of the older antitrust doctrine and the shorter-run driving forces related to switches of the political party in power, merger waves, changes in economic activity, and the level of funding for the Antitrust Division, and quantifies their impact on enforcement by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice over the period from 1958 to 2002. The key findings are: (1) a distinct regime shift in antitrust enforcement during the 1970s and, post-regime shift, there has been a marked compositional change with a quantitatively large increase (decrease) in criminal (civil) antitrust court cases initiated; (2) post-regime shift, there appears to be a change in the role played by politics with Republicans initiating more (less) criminal (civil) court cases than Democrats, and the estimated quantitative effects are large; (3) disaggregating the total number of court cases into the main categories under which they are initiated (price-fixing, mergers, monopolization, and restraints-of-trade) shows that individual types of cases have widely differing responses to changes in the driving forces; and (4) in a horserace between the regime-shift and political effects on one side and the remaining variables on the other, the former forces win hands-down in explaining broad shifts in enforcement. Modeling the longer-run shift and disaggregating the court cases emerge as crucial to gaining insights into the intertemporal shifts in enforcement. The article elaborates on the causes for the shift in enforcement and on the effectiveness of antitrust.

Suggested Citation

  • Vivek Ghosal, 2011. "Regime Shift In Antitrust Laws, Economics, And Enforcement," Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 7(4), pages 733-774.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jcomle:v:7:y:2011:i:4:p:733-774.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/joclec/nhr016
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Catarina Marvão & Giancarlo Spagnolo, 2023. "Leniency Inflation, Cartel Damages, and Criminalization," Review of Industrial Organization, Springer;The Industrial Organization Society, vol. 63(2), pages 155-186, September.
    2. Dzmitry Bartalevich, 2017. "EU competition policy and U.S. antitrust: a comparative analysis," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 44(1), pages 91-112, August.
    3. Ghosal Vivek, 2011. "The Law and Economics of Enhancing Cartel Enforcement: Using Information From Non-Cartel Investigations to Prosecute Cartels," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 7(2), pages 501-538, December.
    4. Gao, Ning & Peng, Ni & Zhang, Yi, 2021. "Distributive inefficiency in horizontal mergers: Evidence from wealth transfers between merging firms and their customers," International Review of Financial Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    5. Gao, Ning & Peng, Ni & Strong, Norman, 2017. "What determines horizontal merger antitrust case selection?," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 51-76.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • L40 - Industrial Organization - - Antitrust Issues and Policies - - - General
    • K00 - Law and Economics - - General - - - General (including Data Sources and Description)

    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:oup:jcomle:v:7:y:2011:i:4:p:733-774.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jcle .

    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.