Comments on: Crane and Lambert on Hovenkamp — the Closet Chicagoan http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/11/13/crane-and-lambert-on-hovenkamp-the-closet-chicagoan/ Academic commentary on law, business, economics and more Thu, 18 Mar 2010 15:36:41 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » understanding antitrust law http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/11/13/crane-and-lambert-on-hovenkamp-the-closet-chicagoan/comment-page-1/#comment-34303 shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress » Blog Archive » understanding antitrust law Tue, 21 Nov 2006 17:33:41 +0000 http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/11/13/crane-and-lambert-on-hovenkamp-the-closet-chicagoan/#comment-34303 [...]   For intellectual and historical background, you might want to read about The Factions of Antitrust.  There are four major schools of thought in the United States concerning the relationship between government and economic markets, resulting in four corresponding approaches to the role of antitrust and competition policy. From political “right” to “left”, they are: Libertarian, Neoclassical (”Chicago”), Post-Chicago, and Populist.  As is suggested in recent postings at the Antitrust Review weblog and Truth on the Market, the “Chicago School” has won most of the important debates in antitrust law — in academia and the courts -- over the past couple of decades. [...] [...]   For intellectual and historical background, you might want to read about The Factions of Antitrust.  There are four major schools of thought in the United States concerning the relationship between government and economic markets, resulting in four corresponding approaches to the role of antitrust and competition policy. From political “right” to “left”, they are: Libertarian, Neoclassical (”Chicago”), Post-Chicago, and Populist.  As is suggested in recent postings at the Antitrust Review weblog and Truth on the Market, the “Chicago School” has won most of the important debates in antitrust law — in academia and the courts – over the past couple of decades. [...]

]]> By: Dan Crane http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/11/13/crane-and-lambert-on-hovenkamp-the-closet-chicagoan/comment-page-1/#comment-32166 Dan Crane Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:25:08 +0000 http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/11/13/crane-and-lambert-on-hovenkamp-the-closet-chicagoan/#comment-32166 I'm not sure whether Tom is stalking me or I'm stalking Tom. I agree with Josh that Bill Kovacic's Double Helix paper does a nice job of rehabilitating the Harvard School (really the second Harvard School of the later Areeda and Turner and Stephen Breyer). Bill presented it at last year's Milton Handler Antitrust Review symposium so it should be coming out in the Columbia Business Law Review. I’m not sure whether Tom is stalking me or I’m stalking Tom.

I agree with Josh that Bill Kovacic’s Double Helix paper does a nice job of rehabilitating the Harvard School (really the second Harvard School of the later Areeda and Turner and Stephen Breyer). Bill presented it at last year’s Milton Handler Antitrust Review symposium so it should be coming out in the Columbia Business Law Review.

]]> By: Josh Wright http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/11/13/crane-and-lambert-on-hovenkamp-the-closet-chicagoan/comment-page-1/#comment-31963 Josh Wright Mon, 13 Nov 2006 19:56:47 +0000 http://www.truthonthemarket.com/2006/11/13/crane-and-lambert-on-hovenkamp-the-closet-chicagoan/#comment-31963 Both of these reviews are excellent reading. I think you are both right to point out that it is very difficult to distinguish some of the concerns of the "New Harvard School" as articulated from the conventional Chicagoan approach. This is especially true when it comes to administrability concerns and incorporating the costs of false positives into our analysis --- though there may be slight differences with respect to the approach to particular types of conduct, e.g. predatory pricing, exclusive dealing, bundling, etc. I suppose one might find the distinction more fruitful is in highlighting differences concerning the role of government in antitrust, i.e. private rights of action, the state action doctrine, etc. On this score generally, Bill Kovacic has a nice paper on the "Double Helix" structure of modern monopolization law (I cant find a link), which he traces to both the Chicago and Harvard schools. Both of these reviews are excellent reading. I think you are both right to point out that it is very difficult to distinguish some of the concerns of the “New Harvard School” as articulated from the conventional Chicagoan approach. This is especially true when it comes to administrability concerns and incorporating the costs of false positives into our analysis — though there may be slight differences with respect to the approach to particular types of conduct, e.g. predatory pricing, exclusive dealing, bundling, etc. I suppose one might find the distinction more fruitful is in highlighting differences concerning the role of government in antitrust, i.e. private rights of action, the state action doctrine, etc. On this score generally, Bill Kovacic has a nice paper on the “Double Helix” structure of modern monopolization law (I cant find a link), which he traces to both the Chicago and Harvard schools.

]]>