Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-c654p Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-30T15:34:52.576Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Original Intent and the Sherman Antitrust Act: A Re-examination of the Consumer-Welfare Hypothesis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2009

Christopher Grandy
Christopher Grandy
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of Economics, Barnard College, New York, NY 10027 and Visiting Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, H1 96822.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An important tenet of the Chicago School of antitrust asserts that the Sherman Act's framers sought to foster consumer welfare. This article challenges that interpretation by re-examining the legislative history. That history suggests that a consumer-welfare standard did not survive the legislative process and that, if anything, Congress focused on the behavior of producers.

Type
Papers Presented at the Fifty-Second Annual Meeting of the Economic History Association
Information
The Journal of Economic History , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , June 1993 , pp. 359 - 376
Copyright
Copyright © The Economic History Association 1993

References

REFERENCES

Blake, Harlan M., and Jones, William K., “In Defense of Antitrust,” Columbia Law Review, 65 (03 1965), pp. 377–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, Harlan M., and Jones, William K., “Toward a Three-Dimensional Antitrust Policy,” Columbia Law Review, 65 (03 1965), pp. 422–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bork, Robert H., “Contrasts in Antitrust Theory: I,” Columbia Law Review, 65 (03 1965), pp. 401–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bork, Robert H., “Legislative Intent and the Policy of the Sherman Act,” Journal of Law & Economics, 9 (10 1966), pp. 7–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bork, Robert H., “Antitrust and Monopoly, The Goals of Antitrust Policy,” AER Papers and Proceedings, 57 (05 1967), pp. 242–53.Google Scholar
Bork, Robert H., The Antitrust Paradox, A Policy at War with Itself (New York, 1978).Google Scholar
Bork, Robert H., and Bowman, Ward S. Jr., “The Crisis in Antitrust,” Columbia Law Review, 65 (03 1965), pp. 363–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, Robin, “The Sherman Act: What Did Congress Intend?” The Antitrust Bulletin, 34 (Summer 1989), pp. 337–50.Google Scholar
Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge, MA, 1977).Google Scholar
Congressional Record (Washington, DC, various dates).Google Scholar
Dewey, Donald, Monopoly in Economics and Law (Chicago, 1959).Google Scholar
Dewey, Donald, “The Economic Theory of Antitrust: Science or Religion?” Virginia Law Review, 50 (04 1964), pp. 413–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiLorenzo, Thomas J., “The Origins of Antitrust: An Interest-Group Perspective,” International Review of Law and Economics, 5 (06 1985), pp. 73–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DiLorenzo, Thomas J., and High, Jack C., “Antitrust and Competition, Historically Considered,” Economic Inquiry, 26 (07 1988), pp. 423–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, John J., “The Reagan Administration's Antitrust Policy, ‘Original Intent’ and the Legislative History of the Sherman Act,” The Antitrust Bulletin, 33 (Summer 1988), pp. 259–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freyer, Tony, Regulating Big Business: Antitrust in Great Britain and America, 1880–1990 (Cambridge, 1992).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grandy, Christopher, New Jersey and the Fiscal Origins of Modern American Corporation Law (New York, 1993).Google Scholar
Hazlett, Thomas W., “The Legislative History of the Sherman Act Re-examined,” Economic Inquiry, 30 (04 1992), pp. 263–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovenkamp, Herbert, “Distributive Justice and the Antitrust Laws,” George Washington Law Review, 51 (11 1982), pp. 1–31.Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, Herbert, “Technology, Politics, and Regulated Monopoly: An American Historical Perspective,” Texas Law Review, 62 (04 1984), pp. 1263–1312.Google Scholar
Hovenkamp, Herbert, “Antitrust Policy After Chicago,” Michigan Law Review 84 (11 1985), pp. 213–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovenkamp, Herbert, “Chicago and Its Alternatives,” Duke Law Journal, 1986 (12 1986), pp. 1014–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovenkamp, Herbert, “Antitrust's Protected Classes,” Michigan Law Review, 88 (10 1989), pp. 1–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hovenkamp, Herbert, Enterprise and American Law 1836–1937 (Cambridge, MA, 1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kintner, Earl W., The Legislative History of the Federal Antitrust Laws and Related Statutes (New York and London, 1978), vol. 1.Google Scholar
Lamoreaux, Naomi R., The Great Merger Movement in American Business, 1895–1904 (New York, 1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lande, Robert H., “Wealth Transfers as the Original and Primary Concern of Antitrust: The Efficiency Interpretation Challenged,” Hastings Law Journal, 34 (09 1982), pp. 65–151.Google Scholar
Letwin, William L., “Congress and the Sherman Antitrust Law: 1887–1890,” The University of Chicago Law Review, 23 (Winter 1956), pp. 221–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Letwin, William L., Law and Economic Policy in America: The Evolution of the Sherman Antitrust Act (Chicago, 1965).Google Scholar
Libecap, Gary D., “The Rise of the Chicago Packers and the Origins of Meat Inspection and Antitrust,” Economic Inquiry, 30 (04 1992), pp. 242–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCraw, Thomas K., “Rethinking the Trust Question,” in McCraw, Thomas K., ed., Regulation in Perspective: Historical Essays (Cambridge, MA, 1981), pp. 1–55.Google Scholar
McCurdy, Charles W., “The Knight Sugar Decision of 1895 and the Modernization of American Corporation Law, 1869–1903,” Business History Review, 53 (Autumn 1979), pp. 304–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
May, James, “Antitrust in the Formative Era: Political and Economic Theory in Constitutional and Antitrust Analysis, 1880–1918,” Ohio State Law Journal, 50 (1989), pp. 257–395.Google Scholar
Millon, David, “The Sherman Act and the Balance of Power,” Southern California Law Review, 61 (07 1988), pp. 1219–92.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A., Antitrust Law: An Economic Perspective (Chicago, 1976).Google Scholar
Scherer, F. M., “Efficiency, Fairness, and the Early Contributions of Economists to the Antitrust Debate,” Washburn Law Journal, 29 (Winter 1990), pp. 243–55.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Ingo L. O., and Rittaler, Jan B., A Critical Evaluation of the Chicago School of Antitrust Analysis (Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sklar, Martin J., The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism 1890–1916: The Market, the Law, and Politics (Cambridge, 1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taft, William Howard, The Anti-Trust Act and the Supreme Court (New York, 1914; reprint 1970).Google Scholar
Thorelli, Hans B., The Federal Antitrust Policy: Origination of an American Tradition (Stockholm, 1954).Google Scholar
Trebilcock, Michael J., The Common Law of Restraint of Trade: A Legal and Economic Analysis (Toronto, 1986).Google Scholar