1. For the former interpretation of 1912, see Link, Arthur S., Woodrow Wilson and the Progressive Era, 1910–1917 (New York: Harper Bros., 1954)Google Scholar; Hawley, Ellis, The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), 3–9Google Scholar; Hays, Samuel P., “Political Parties and the Community-Society Continuum,” in Chambers, William Nisbet and Burnham, Walter Dean, eds. The American Party Systems, 2nd ed, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1975), 152–81Google Scholar; James, Scott C., “Coalition-Building, The Democracy, and the Development of American Regulatory Institutions, 1884–1936: A Party System Perspective,” paper delivered at the 1993 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 16–19Google Scholar. See also Sklar, Martin J., The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 1890–1916: The Market, The Law, and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).Google Scholar

2. Among the many scholars who have confused Brandeis's approach to antitrust with traditional principles of political economy see McCraw, Thomas K., Prophets of Regulation: Charles Francis Adams, Jr., Louis D. Brandeis, James M. Landis, Alfred E. Kahn (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), 80–142Google Scholar; Stone, Alan, Economic Regulation and the Public Interest: The Federal Trade Commission in Theory and Practice (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1977), 27Google Scholar; Lippmann, Walter, Drift and Mastery: An Attempt to Diagnose the Current Unrest (first published 1914), Spectrum Edition (Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall, 1961), 42–43Google Scholar; Hofstadter, Richard, “What Happened to the Antitrust Movement? Notes on an American Creed,” in Cheit, Earl, ed., The Business Establishment (New York: John Wiley, 1964), 113–51Google Scholar; Hofstadter, Richard, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. (New York: Vintage, 1955), 244–56Google Scholar; Hartz, Louis, The Liberal Tradition in America: An interpretation of American Political Thought Since the Revolution (New York: Harcourt, 1955), 219–25, 237–48Google Scholar; Bork, Robert, The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself (New York: Basic Books, 1978), 41–47Google 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): 282–83Google Scholar. To be sure, another strain of Brandeis scholarship sees him as the characteristic pragmatic modern, the mentor to legal realism. In retrieving Brandeis's theory of regulated competition, this article will reconcile the conflict in Brandeis scholarship. For Brandeis the “modern,” see Lerner, Max, “Mr. Justice Brandeis: The Social Thought of Mr. Justice Brandeis,” in Lerner, Max, Ideas are Weapons: The History and Uses of Ideas (New York: Viking, 1943), 70–116Google Scholar; Purcell, Edward A. Jr., The Crisis of Democratic Theory: Scientific Naturalism and The Problem of Value (Louisville: University of Kentucky Press, 1973), 76–77Google Scholar; Horwitz, Morton J., The Transformation of American Law, 1870–1960: The Crisis of Legal Orthodoxy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 165–67, 203–5, 213, 260–62Google Scholar; Mason, Alpheus, Brandeis: Lawyer and Judge in the Modern State (Princeton: Princeton University press, 1933).Google Scholar

3. This narrative is best articulated by the organizational synthesis in American history. See especially Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Chandler, Alfred D. Jr., Scale and Scope: The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990), 1–234Google Scholar; Galambos, Louis, “The Organizational Synthesis in Modern American History,” Business History Review 44, (Autumn 1970), 279–90Google Scholar; Galambos, Louis, “Technology, Political Economy and Professionalization: Central Themes of the Organizational Synthesis,” Business History Review 57 (Winter 1983), 471–93Google Scholar; McCraw, Thomas K., “The Intellectual Odyssey of Alfred D. Chandler, Jr.,” in McCraw, Thomas K., ed., The Essential Alfred Chandler: Essays Toward a Historical Theory of Big Business (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1988), 1–21Google Scholar. On this periodization see Martin Sklar, J., “Periodization and Historiography: Studying American Political Development in the Progressive Era,” Studies in American Political Development 5 (Fall 1991): 173–213.Google Scholar

4. There are many subtle variations upon this theme, a number of which claim to explore the effects of politics upon industrialization. Most, however, take the basic organizing principles and features of corporate capitalism as exogenous to politics. For a more extensive account and critique of new institutionalist approaches to statebuilding in response to industrialization, see Berk, Gerald, Alternative Tracks: The Constitution of American Industrial Order, 1865–1916 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1994), chap. 1Google Scholar. For a similar critique of “corporate liberal” approaches, see Berk, Gerald, “Corporate Liberalism Reconsidered: A Review Essay,” Journal of Policy History 3 (Winter 1991): 70–84.Google Scholar

5. For theoretical accounts of political and economic development as an adaptive process, combining elements of tradition and modernity into hybrid institutions or “layered texts,” see Orren, Karen and Skowronek, Stephen, “Beyond the Iconography of Order: Notes for a New Institutionalism,” paper presented at the 1991 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science AssociationGoogle Scholar; Unger, Roberto, False Necessity: Anti-Necessitarian Social Theory in the Service of Radical Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 33–37, 294–302Google Scholar; Sabel, Charles and Zeitlin, Jonathan, “Worlds of Possibility: Flexibility and Mass Production in Western Industrialization,” in Sabel, Charles and Zeitlin, Jonathan, eds., Worlds of Possibility: Flexibility and Mass Production in Western Industrialization (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, forthcoming)Google Scholar; Berger, Suzanne and Piore, Michael, Dualism and Discontinuity in Industrial Societies (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980).Google Scholar

6. Chandler, , The Visible Hand, 6–12Google Scholar; Chandler, , Scale and Scope, 21–34, 235–392Google Scholar; McCraw, , Prophets of Regulation, 67–68.Google Scholar

7. This phrase derives from Bailyn, Bernard, The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967).Google Scholar

8. The ideology of “producer's-republicanism” or republican antimonopolism among workers and farmers in the late nineteenth century has been explored by Hattam, Victoria, “Economic Visions and Political Strategies: American Labor and the State, 1865–1896,” Studies in American Political Development, 4 (1990): 82–129Google Scholar; Goodwyn, Lawrence, Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976)Google Scholar; Fink, Leon, Workingmen's Democracy: The Knights of Labor and American Politics (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Foner, Eric, Free Soil, Free Labor, Free Men: The Ideology of the Republican Party Before the Civil War (London: Oxford University Press, 1970)Google Scholar; Oestreicher, Richard, “Terrence Powderly, The Knights of Labor and Artisinal Republicanism,” in Dubofsky, Melvyn and Van Tine, Warren, eds., Labor Leaden in America (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1987), 30–60Google Scholar; Salvatore, Nick, Eugene V. Debs: Citizen and Socialist (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1982)Google Scholar; Berk, Alternative Tracks; Ritter, Gretchen, “Parties and the Politics of Money: The Antimonopoly Tradition and American Political Development, 1865–1896” (Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Political Science, MIT, 1992)Google Scholar. On the origins of Anglo-American republicanism more generally see Pocock, J. G. A., Politics, Language and Time (New York: Atheneum, 1971), 80–147Google Scholar; Pocock, J. G. A., The Machiavellian Moment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), 506–52Google Scholar; Shallope, Robert, “Republicanism and Early American Historiography, William and Mary Quarterly, 39 (04 1982), 334–356Google Scholar; and Gibson, Alan Ray, “The Tenth Federalist and the American Founding” (Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Government and International Studies, University of Notre Dame, 1992), chap. 1.Google Scholar

9. Wilenz, Sean, Chants Democratic: New York City and the Rise of the American Working Class, 1788–1850 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), 190–201Google Scholar; Hurst, James Willard, The Legitimacy of the Business Corporation in the Law of the United States, 1780–1970 (Charlottesville: The University Press of Virginia, 1970), 33–43Google Scholar; Freyer, Tony Alan, Forums of Order: The Federal Courts and Business in American History (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 1979)Google Scholar; Meyers, Marvin, The Jacksonian Persuasion; Politics and Belief (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1957).Google Scholar

10. May, , “Antitrust in the Formative Era,” 269–77Google Scholar; Hovencamp, , Enterprise and American Law, 67–78, 183–92.Google Scholar

11. Curry, Leonard, Blueprint for Modern America: Non-Military Legislation of the First Civil War Congress (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968).Google Scholar

12. Lloyd, Henry Demerest, Wealth Against Commonwealth (New York: Harper Bros., 1894), 494.Google Scholar

13. On greenback approaches to money and banking reform see Destler, Chester McArthur, American Radicalism, 1865–1901 (1946, reprint, Chicago: Quadrangle, 1966), 50–77Google Scholar; Hattam, , “Economic Visions and Political Strategies,” 90–98Google Scholar; Goodwyn, Democratic Promise; Berk, , Alternative Tracks, 41–44Google Scholar; Ritter, “Parties and the Politics of Money.” On “regional republican” approaches to railroad regulation see Berk, , Alternative Tracks, chap. 4.Google Scholar

14. See, for example, the discussion of free silver in Goodwyn, , Democratic Promise, 208–11, 388–401, 590–92Google Scholar; of Coin's Financial School in Livingston, , Origins of the Federal Reserve, 90–95Google Scholar; and of the attitudes of the Knights of Labor toward the conspiracy doctrine in Hattam, , “Economic Visions and Political Strategies,” 119–23.Google Scholar

15. Hattam, , “Economic Visions and Political Strategies,” 119–23Google Scholar. For this interpretation of the statutory intent of the Sherman Act see May, , “Antitrust in the Formative Era,” 288–300, 331–40Google Scholar; Blicksilver, Jack, Defenders and Defense of Big Business in the United States, 1880–1900 (New York: Garland Pub., 1985), 122–28Google Scholar; Letwin, William, Law and Economic Policy in America: The Evolution of the Sherman Antitrust Act (New York: Random House, 1965), 95–99Google Scholar; Lande, Robert, “Wealth Transfers as the Original and Primary Concern of Antitrust: The Efficiency Interpretation Challenged,” in Sullivan, E. Thomas, ed., The Political Economy of the Sherman Act: The First One Hundred Years (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 71–84Google Scholar; Million, David, “The Sherman Act and the Balance of Power,” in Sullivan, , ed., The Political Economy of the Sherman Act, 85–115.Google Scholar

16. Hovencamp, , Enterprise and American Law, 268–91.Google Scholar

17. Berk, , Alternative Tracks, 82–83, 100–104.Google Scholar

18. Ross, Dorothy, “Socialism and American Liberalism: Academic Social Thought in the 1880s,” Perspectives in American History 11 (1977–1978): 7–79.Google Scholar

19. Strum, Philippa, Louis D. Brandeis: Justice for the People (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1984), 95–96Google Scholar. See also Mason, , Brandeis: Lawyer and Judge in the Modern State, 18–19.Google Scholar

20. Letter to Robert W. Bruere, February 25, 1922, excerpted in Lief, Alfred, The Brandeis Guide to the Modern World (Boston: Little, Brown, 1941), 70–71.Google Scholar

21. Ibid., 51–52.

22. Fourth of July Oration, Fanueil Hall, Boston, 1915, excerpted in Lief, , The Brandeis Guide, 3–4Google Scholar, emphasis added.

23. Address Before the Southern New England Textile Club, Providence, December 28, 1912, excerpted in Lief, , The Brandeis Guide, 34.Google Scholar

24. Conversation with Alfred Lief, May 19, 1934, excerpted in Lief, , The Brandeis Guide, 34–35.Google Scholar

25. Filene Co-operative Association Echo, May 1905, excerpted in Lief, , The Brandeis Guide, 97.Google Scholar

26. McCraw, , Prophets of Regulation, 80–152Google Scholar; Bork, , The Antitrust Paradox, 41–47.Google Scholar

27. Hearings before the Senate Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Control of Corporations, Persons, and Firms Engaged in Interstate Commerce, 62d Cong, 2d sess. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1912), 1147–48 and 1215–17Google Scholar. Hereafter cited as Clapp Committee.

28. Brandeis, Louis D., “Trusts and Efficiency,” Collier's Weekly (09 14, 1912)Google Scholar, reprinted in Brandeis, Louis D., Business – A Profession (Boston: Small & Maynard, 1914), 206.Google Scholar

29. Clapp Committee, 1158–59, 1206, 1209–10. Additional evidence of Brandeis's under standing of scale economies in continuous process technologies in steel can be found in Testimony before the House Committee on Investigation of United States Steel Corporation, 62nd Cong, 2d Sess., No. 40., 2837–39, where he argues that since critical parts of the smelting and hot rolling process necessitated twenty-four hour operation, the working day should be shortened to eight, not ten, hours.

30. Brandeis, Louis D., “How Boston Solved the Gas Problem,” American Review of Reviews, 1907Google Scholar, reprinted in Brandeis, , Business – A Profession, 109, emphasis added.Google Scholar

31. Known by neoclassical economists as the “Averch-Johnson effect,” the perverse effect of rate-of-return regulation, wherein regulated enterprises have a systematic incentive to invest in inefficiently large sums of capital equipment, have been well documented during the past thirty years. See Scherer, F. M., Industrial Market Structure and Economic Performance, 2nd ed. (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1980), 483.Google Scholar

32. Strum, , Louis D. Brandeis, 67–72.Google Scholar

33. Clapp Committee, 1149. On Brandeis's admiration for the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy see Brandeis, Louis D., Other People's Money and Haw the Bankers Use It (Washington: National Home Library, 1933), 118–121Google Scholar; for Ingersoll and Kellogg, see Testimony before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Regulation of Prices, 64th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1916), 222Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Regulation of Prices); for Gillette, Testimony before the House Committee on Patents, “Oldefield Revision and Codification of the Patent Statues, No. 18,” 62nd Cong. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1916), 4Google Scholar (hereafter cited as Oldefield Committee); and for Carnegie, Andrew, Clapp Committee, Pt. 34, 9–10.Google Scholar

34. Brandeis, Louis D., “Trusts and Efficiency,” Collier's Weekly (09 14, 1912)Google Scholar, reprinted in Brandeis, , Business – A Profession, 223–24.Google Scholar

35. Clapp Committee, 1147–48.

36. Harper's Weekly, January 30, 1914, quoted in Lief, , The Brandeis Guide, 27.Google Scholar

37. Brandeis, , Other People's Money, 102–103.Google Scholar

38. Ibid.

39. See Clapp Committee, 1159–60, 1207–8. For a more in-depth analysis of U.S. Steel's attempt to erect vertical entry barriers, see Lamoreaux, Naomi, The Great Merger Movement in American Business, 1895–1904 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 142–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40. On vertical barriers to entry in Tobacco see Clapp Committee, 1231. For Brandeis's account of vertical monopoly in oil, see Clapp Committee, Pt. 34, 6–7, 12–13.

41. Lamoreaux, , The Great Merger Movement, 152–58Google Scholar. The quotation is on 158.

42. Brandeis, , Other People's Money, 111.Google Scholar

43. Clapp Committee, 1175.

44. Clapp Committee, 1236.

45. Brandeis dissent in American Column Co. v. United States, 257 U.S. 377 at 414 (1921).

46. Ctapp Committee, 1170.

47. Brandeis, , “Trusts and Efficiency,” Collier's Weekly (09 14, 1912), reprinted Business – A Profession 205–224, emphasis added.Google Scholar

48. Clapp Committee, 1171.

49. Lamoreaux, , The Great Merger Movement, 50–52Google Scholar. See also Best, Michael, The New Competition: Institutions of Industrial Restructuring (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1990), 47–51Google Scholar; and Fligstein, Neil, The Transformation of Corporate Control (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990), 33–74.Google Scholar

50. Lamoreaux, , The Great Merger Movement, 62–86Google Scholar. On railroad receiverships as a strategy to reduce the pressures of destructive competition, see Berk, , Alternative Tracks, chap. 3Google Scholar; and Berk, Gerald, “Constituting Corporations and Markets: Railroads in Gilded Age Politics,” Studies in American Political Development 4 (1990): 136–50.Google Scholar

51. See, for example, Lamoreaux, who draws a distinction between the high-fixed-cost newsprint industry and the low-fixed-cost specialty-writing-paper sector. Firms in the latter, she argues, were not subject to the economic pressures that led to merger; instead, as the neoclassical model of perfect competition predicts, they laid off variable costs in a downturn and awaited the return of prosperity. Lamoreaux, , The Great Merger Movement, 16–27.Google Scholar

52. Scranton, Philip, “Diversity in Diversity: Flexible Production and American Industrialization, 1880–1930,” Business History Review 65 (Spring 1991), 27–90Google Scholar; Scranton, Philip, Proprietary Capitalism: The Textile Manufacture at Philadelphia, 1880–1885 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983)Google Scholar; Scranton, Philip, Figured Tapestry: Production, Markets, and Power in Philadelphia Textiles, 1885–1941 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989)Google Scholar. For similar problems among the specialty-firm sectors in contemporary industrial economies, see Sabel, Charles F., “Flexible Specialisation and the Re-emergence of Regional Economies,” in Hirst, Paul and Zeitlin, Jonathan, eds., Reversing Industrial Decline? Industrial Structure and Policy in Britain and Her Competitors (Oxford: Berg, 1989), 17–70Google Scholar; Lorenz, Edward, “The Search for Flexibility: Subcontracting Networks in French and British Engineering,” in Hirst, and Zeitlin, , eds., Reversing Industrial Decline?, 122–132Google Scholar; Storper, Michael, “The Transition to Flexible Specialization: The Division of Labor, External Economies, and the Crossing of Industrial Divides,” Cambridge Journal of Economics 13 (1989), 273–305Google Scholar. On the theoretical problem of socially “embedded” or nonfungible business assets, see Best, , The New Competition, 125–32Google Scholar; Granovetter, Mark, “Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness,” American Journal of Sociology 91 (11 1985): 481–510Google Scholar; and Dore, Ronald, “Goodwill and the Spirit of Market Capitalism,” British Journal of Sociology 34 (1983): 459–82.Google Scholar

53. United States v. Standard Oil Co., 221 U.S. 51; United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U.S. 106; Letwin, , Law and Economic Policy, 256–65Google Scholar; Jones, , The Trust Problem, 406–18Google Scholar; Sklar, , The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 146–52.Google Scholar

54. Sklar, , The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 264–65, 324–25.Google Scholar

55. See, for example, Urofsky, Melvin I, Louis D. Brandeis and the Progressive Tradition (Boston: Little, Brown, 1981), 68–86.Google Scholar

56. Brandeis, , “The Competition that Kills,” in Brandeis, , Business – A Profession, 251Google Scholar, emphasis added.

57. For similar recent discussions of “relational” contracting, see Granovetter, “Economic Action and Social Structure;” Lorenz, Edward, “Neither Friends nor Strangers: Informal Networks of Subcontracting in French Industry,” in Gambetta, Diego, ed., Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988) 194–210Google Scholar; Dore, “Goodwill and the Spirit of Market Capitalism”; Sabel, , “Flexible Specialization and the Re-emergence of Regional Economies,” 26–31.Google Scholar

58. Dissenting opinion in Hitchmen Coal and Coke Co. v. Mitchell, 245 U.S. 229, 263 (1917).

59. Clapp Committee, 1289.

60. Letter to Frederick Wehle, October 28, 1924, quoted in Lief, , The Brandeis Guide, 179.Google Scholar

61. Address before the Southern New England Textile Club, December 28, 1912, excerpted in Lief, , The Brandeis Guide, 179.Google Scholar

62. American Legal News, January 1913, excerpted in Lief, , The Brandeis Guide, 54.Google Scholar

63. Boston American, June 18, 1907, excerpted in Lief, , The Brandeis Guide, 179.Google Scholar

64. Clapp Committee, 1245.

65. Brandeis, , “Competition,” 121–22.Google Scholar

66. Clapp Committee, 1167.

67. On the shared notion of homeostasis in classical political economy and modern pluralist theory, see Lowi, Theodore, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States, 2nd ed. (New York: W.W. Norton, 1979), 3–41.Google Scholar

68. Brandeis, , “Shall We Abandon the Policy of Competition”? in Fraenkel, Osmond K., ed., The Curse of Bigness (New York: Viking, 1934), 104.Google Scholar

69. Brandeis, , “Competition,” 115.Google Scholar

70. Brandeis, Louis D., “The Solution to the Trust Problem; A Program” Harper's Weekly 58 (11 15, 1913), 18–19Google Scholar, in Fraenkel, , The Curse of Bigness, 131.Google Scholar

71. Address Before Southern New England Textile Club, Providence, December 28, 1912, excerpted in Lief, , The Brandeis Guide, 34Google Scholar; conversation with Alfred Lief, May 19, 1934, excerpted in Lief, , The Brandeis Guide, 34–35Google Scholar; FTC v. Graz, 253 U.S. 421 (1920), quoted in Keller, Morton, Regulating a New Economy: Public Policy and Economic Change in America, 1900–1933 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990), 40.Google Scholar

72. Dissent in American Column Co. v. U.S., 257 U.S. 414.

73. Brandeis, , “The Competition that Kills,” in Business -A Profession, 251.Google Scholar

74. Brandeis, , “Competition that Kills,” 261Google Scholar. On the problem of contract and democratic birthright in modern politics more generally, see Wolin, Sheldon, The Presence of the Past (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989), 137–50.Google Scholar

75. Clapp Committee, 1182–1249.

76. Brandeis, Louis D., “Trusts and the Export Trade,” Collier's Weekly (09 21, 1912)Google Scholar, reprinted in Brandeis, , Business – A Profession, 225–242Google Scholar, quotation is on 231–32.

77. Clapp Committee, 1150–51.

78. American Column Co. v. United States, 257 U.S. 377 (1921) at 415–418, emphasis added.

79. Ibid.

80. Ibid., 257 U.S. 418–19.

81. Brandeis, , “The Solution to the Trust Problem,” in Fraenkel, , The Curse of Bigness, 135–36Google Scholar, emphasis added. See also Clapp Committee, 1250, where he says, “we must do all that we can do to preserve and develop competition. Now, I conceive it to be perfectly possible that a state of affairs might arise under which it might be necessary, in order to preserve competition, to allow some kind of trade agreements,” and also indicates his positive assessment of employer's associations.

82. Gal, Allen, Brandeis of Boston (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

83. Scranton, “Diversity in Diversity”; Scranton, Philip, “Supple Cities: Flexible Manufacturing and Industrial Districts in the United States, 1870–1930,” unpublished paper, Rutgers University, Camden, 12–16, 19–20Google Scholar; Scranton, Proprietary Capitalism; Stern, Mark, “Market Control, Competition and Class Relations in the American Pottery Industry, 1890–1922,” paper delivered at the 1987 Social Science History Association,New Orleans,October 30, 1987.Google Scholar

84. Thomas, AlpheusMason, Brandeis: A Free Man's Life (New York: Viking, 1946), 216.Google Scholar

85. Mason, Brandeis: A Free Man's Life, 214–29; Claff Committee, 1160–62, 1188–93.

86. Brandeis, Louis D., “The Competition that Kills,” in Brandeis, , Business – A Profession, 234–247Google Scholar. For a more recent account of how dishonesty among sellers can “ruin” a market, see Acklerlof, George, An Economic Theorist's Book of Tales (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), 15–17.Google Scholar

87. Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. Strauss, 210 U.S. 339 (1911).

88. McCraw, , Prophets of Regulation, 101–108Google Scholar; Bunzel, John H., The American Small Businessman (New York: Arno Press, 1979), 179–80Google Scholar; Palamountain, Joseph C., The Politics of Distribution (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1955).Google Scholar

89. Hovencamp, , Enterprise and American Law, 341Google Scholar; Bork, , The Antitrust Paradox, 288–91Google Scholar; Posner, Richard A., “The Chicago School of Antitrust Analysis,” in Sullivan, , ed., The Political Economy of the Sherman Act, 194–95, 200–3.Google Scholar

90. See Strasser, Susan, Satisfaction Guaranteed: The Making of the American Mass Market (New York: Pantheon, 1989), 124–46, 269–77Google Scholar; and on the “hedging” strategies of mass producers, more generally, see Sabel and Zeitlin, “Worlds of Possibility.” Resale price maintenance might be confused with Chandler's account of forward integration and product diver sification by producers of branded packaged products. These were not, however, functional equivalents. According to Chandler, product diversification was motivated by the desire to capture economies of scope in distribution (among manufacturers with their own retail outlets). Resale price maintenance, by contrast, was a hedging strategy, driven by the risks of mass production (risks that would have been increased by forward integration). See Chandler, , Scale and Scope, 161–70.Google Scholar

91. Brandeis, , “Competition that Kills,” 255.Google Scholar

92. On opposition to resale price maintenance by mass retailers, see Strasser, , Satisfaction Guaranteed, 282.Google Scholar

93. Oldefield Patent Committee, 4, emphasis added. For a similar defense of resale price maintenance by Kellogg see Strasser, , Satisfaction Guaranteed, 280–81.Google Scholar

94. To be sure, Brandeis also thought the preservation of independent retailers was an added benefit of resale price maintenance. Much has been made of Brandeis's support for these goals at the cost to efficiency in a 1930 case against a Florida law that taxed chain stores. In supporting the state's right to levy such a tax, Brandeis said the the preservation of independent proprietors was a legitimate and laudable goal. Nonetheless, as Brandeis pointed out, the Florida legislature preferred not merely small proprietors, but “cooperative retail associations” over integrated chains. Moreover, the chain stores themselves argued that the cooperatives had attained external economies of scale equal to their internal economies. See Liggett v. Lee 288 U.S. 577–80.

95. Clapp Committee, 1208.

96. Regulation of Prices, 225.

97. Regulation of Prices, 227–228, emphasis added.

98. Strum, , Louis D. Brandeis, 212–15Google Scholar; Urofsky, Melvyn, A Mind of One Piece: Brandeis and American Reform (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1971), 71–92Google Scholar; Mason, , Brandeis: A Free Man's Life, 399–404Google Scholar; Link, , Woodrow Wilson, 20–1, 69, 71–2.Google Scholar

99. On the Clayton Act, see Pub. No. 212, 63d Cong., chap. 323, 38 Slat, at L. 730; Letwin, , Law and Economic Policy, 273–76Google Scholar; Sklar, , The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 330Google Scholar; Link, , Woodrow Wilson, 427–44Google Scholar; Keller, , Regulating a New Economy, 33Google Scholar; Stone, , Economic Regulation and the Public Interest, 47–50Google Scholar. On the Federal Trade Commission Act, see Strum, , Louis D. Brandeis, 212Google Scholar; Keller, , Regulating a New Economy, 33Google Scholar; Sklar, , The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 328–330Google Scholar; Stone, , Economic Regulation and the Public Interest, 40–47Google Scholar; Henderson, Gerard, The Federal Trade Commission: A Study in Administrative Law and Procedure (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1925), 1–48.Google Scholar

100. Unger, Irwin, The Greenback Era: A Social and Political History of American Finance, 1865–1879 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964), 237Google Scholar; Livingston, , Origins of the Federal Reserve, 97–98, 109, 114Google Scholar; Hovencamp, , Enterprise and American Law, 325Google Scholar; Sklar, , The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 205–213Google Scholar; Weinstein, James, The Corporate Ideal in the Liberal State, 1900–1918 (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968), 88Google Scholar; Stone, , Economic Regulation and the Public Interest, 32–34.Google Scholar

101. Livingston, James, “The Social Analysis of Economic History and Theory: Conjectures on Late Nineteenth-Century American Development,” American Historical Review 92 (02 1987): 87–94Google Scholar; Sklar, , The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 57–72.Google Scholar

102. For an early and influential neoclassical justification of regulated monopoly see, Adams, Henry Carter, “Relation of the State to Industrial Action,” Publications American Economic Association 55 (01 1887)Google Scholar. On the fight for federal licensing in the Hepburn Act of 1908, see Sklar, , The Corporate Reconstruction of American Capitalism, 228–85Google Scholar. On the neo classical justification for the Clayton Act see Hovencamp, , Enterprise and American Law, 325–26Google Scholar; Clark, John Bates and Clark, John Maurice, The Control of the Trusts (New York: MacMillan, 1912)Google Scholar; Jones, The Trust Problem; Stone, , Economic Regulation and the Public Interest, 32–34.Google Scholar

103. On the hegemony of neoclassical thinking in antitrust judicial doctrine in the twentieth century more generally see Hovencamp, Enterprise and American Law.

104. Himmelberg, Robert F., The Origins of the National Recovery Administration: Business, Government, and the Trade Association Issue, 1921–1933 (New York: Fordham University Press, 1976).Google Scholar

105. Hawley, Ellis, “Herbert Hoover and the Sherman Act, 1921–1933: An Early Phase of a Continuing Issue,” Iowa Law Review 74 (1989), 1082, 1095.Google Scholar

106. Himmelberg, , Origins of the National Recovery Act, 26, 66Google Scholar; Hawley, Ellis, “Herbert Hoover, the Commerce Secretariat, and the Vision of an ‘Associative State,’ 1921–1928,” Journal of American History 64 (06 1974), 125, 133Google Scholar; Scranton, , Figured Tapestry, 326, 376–77Google Scholar; Murray, Robert K., “Herbert Hoover and the Harding Cabinet,” in Hawley, Ellis, ed., Herbert Hoover as Secretary of Commerce: Studies in New Era Thought and Practice (Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1981), 24Google Scholar; Hawley, Ellis, “Herbert Hoover and Economic Stabilization, 1921–22,” in Hawley, , ed., Herbert Hoover as Secretary of Commerce, 51Google Scholar. On Brandeis's proposal for “industrial experiment stations” see Strum, , Louis D. Brandeis, 212.Google Scholar

107. Maple Flooring Manufacturer's Association v. United States, 268 U.S. 563 (1925); United States v. Trenton Potteries Co., 273 U.S. 392 (1927); Himmelberg, , Origins of the National Recovery Administration, 48–49, 65–68Google Scholar; Hawley, , “Herbert Hoover and the Sherman Act,” 1085–95Google Scholar; Keller, , Regulating a New Economy, 38–9.Google Scholar

108. Himmelberg, , Origins of the National Industrial Recovery Act, 151–63Google Scholar; Hawley, , “Herbert Hoover and the Sherman Act,” 1090–92Google Scholar; Davis, G. Cullom, “The Transformation of the Federal Trade Commission, 1914–1929,” Mississippi Valley Historical Review (1962), 437–55Google Scholar. Hoover marked America's official ambivalence toward associations in a way that prefigured the policy vacillations of the New Deal. See Hawley, The New Deal and the Problem of Monopoly.

109. Scranton, , “Diversity in Diversity,” 36Google Scholar; Scranton, , “Supple Cities,” 12–16, 19–20.Google Scholar

110. Scranton, , “Diversity in Diversity,” 65Google Scholar. For a detailed account of the devastating effects of Hoover-style rationalization in mass distribution upon the specialty textile sector of Philadelphia in the 1920s, see Scranton, , Figured Tapestry, 323–453Google Scholar. On the necessity for price stabilization in the sanitary pottery industry's efforts to innovate and reproduce skills, and its difficulties after the Sanitary Potter's Association was dismantled by the government's victory in Trenton Potteries, see Mark Stern, “Market Control, Competition and Class Relations in the American Pottery Industry.” For an excellent comparison of the effects of governance institutions on the adaptive capacities of the German and American machine tool industries, see Herrigel, Gary, “Industry as a Form of Order: A Comparison of the Historical Development of the Machine Tool Industries in the United States and Germany,” in Streeck, Wolfgang, Schmitter, Phillippe, and Hollingsworth, J. Rogers, eds., Governing Capitalist Economies: Performance and Control of Economic Sectors (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) 97–128.Google Scholar

111. U.S. v. Aluminum Corporation of America, 148 Fed Rep 416, 442 as cited by Bork, , The Antitrust Paradox, 51Google Scholar, where the author equates Brandeis with this famous quotation by Hand (emphasis added by Bork); Garvey, George E. and Garvey, Gerald J., Economic Law and Economic Growth: Antitrust, Regulation and the American Growth System (New York: Praeger, 1990), 65.Google Scholar

112. The phrase “creedal passion” derives from Hungtington, Samuel P., American Politics: The Promise of Disharmony (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1981).Google Scholar