Maybe this is unfair, but can I observe that for non-specialists these labels often lead to misunderstandings — even disagreements where in fact none exist. I wish you would follow up with a post explaining why it’s important to continue to recognize the Chicago school rather than a particular idea or methodology. There is evidence from psychology that us/them distinctions — which are easier to form around tangible groups, although still not impossible around ideologies — shut down dialogue.

Don’t you think he got this right (though he could – and should – have dropped the “at least”)?

The classification problem is tricky, I know. Where to put folks like Williamson, North, and others doing NIE. Clearly, some of these folks are Chicagoan (Klein and others come to mind) whereas others (Williamson) would be surprised to hear themselves categorized that way. Understanding the imprecision associated with the choice, for the sake of simplicity I include folks employing NIE and transaction cost economics in this group. But my claim that the Chicago School still has considerable influence on antitrust law and that its models have greater explanatory power in many antitrust debates of policy relevance holds under either set of definitions (for antitrust purposes, I think this largely amounts to with and without Williamson and a handful of others because so many employing NIE/TCE have Chicago/ UCLA roots, i.e. Coase, Klein, Demsetz).