Why Economists Should Support Populist Antitrust Goals

Author:

Glick Mark, ,Lozada Gabriel A.,Bush Darren, ,

Abstract

Antitrust economists have generally supported the Consumer Welfare Standard as a guide to antitrust policy questions because of its origins in Marshall’s consumer surplus approach and the general economic surplus approach to welfare economics. But welfare economists no longer support the surplus approach because decades of research pertaining to the surplus approach have uncovered numerous inconsistencies and serious ethical challenges. However, the surplus approach to welfare survives in industrial organization textbooks and among industrial organization economists that specialize in antitrust. We argue in this paper that the Consumer Welfare Standard is not a reliable standard and should be abandoned. We cite several reasons: (1) it limits antitrust goals a priori without any defensible justification, (2) it considers all transfers of surplus between stakeholders in antitrust cases to be welfare neutral, (3) it is biased in favor of big business and the rich, and (4) the accumulation of inconsistencies and problems documented by welfare economists renders the theory completely unreliable. In a final section of the paper, we preliminarily contend that modern research in welfare economics concerning the factors that influence human welfare could be used to inform a more progressive standard for determining antitrust goals.

Publisher

Institute for New Economic Thinking Working Paper Series

Reference137 articles.

1. Adler, Matthew. Measuring Social Welfare: An Introduction (2019) https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780190643027.001.0001

2. Kirman, Alan P., Whom or What Does the Representative Individual Represent? 6 Journal of Economic Perspectives 117-136, 120 (1992) https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.6.2.117

3. Anielski, Mark. The Economics of Happiness: Building Genuine Wealth (2007) https://newsociety.ca/books/e/the-economics-of-happiness?sitedomain=us

4. Antitrust and Sustainability: Part of the Solution or Part of the Problem, ABA Webinar, July 11, 2022.

5. Baker, Edwin. The Ideology of the Economic Analysis of Law, 5 Philosophy & Public Affairs 17, 3-48 (1975) https://www.jstor.org/stable/2265019

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3