Antitrust in the Internet Era: The Legacy of United States v. A&P View Full Text


Ontology type: schema:ScholarlyArticle     


Article Info

DATE

2019-03-20

AUTHORS

Timothy J. Muris, Jonathan E. Nuechterlein

ABSTRACT

Critics from both the right and the left claim that modern antitrust doctrine, rooted in consumer welfare, is inadequate to handle the challenges of the twenty-first century economy. They express nostalgia for 1960s antitrust, when the field had no clear objectives and cases were decided on impressionistic notions of “fairness” and good corporate citizenship. This article exposes the intellectual void at the heart of this new populist movement and begins by following Justice Holmes’ tenet that “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.” More than 80 years ago, the A&P grocery chain was a vertically integrated retailer that made use of unprecedented scale and innovation to offer consumers a wider range of products than the competition and at lower prices. Yet A&P’s very success, which came at the expense of smaller and less efficient competitors, triggered a backlash: first from Congress, in the form of the Robinson–Patman Act, and then from the Justice Department, in the form of successful prosecution under the Sherman Act. These attacks on A&P bear an eerie resemblance to attacks today on leading online innovators. Increasingly integrated and efficient retailers—first A&P; then “big box” brick-and-mortar stores; and now online retailers—have challenged traditional retail models by offering consumers lower prices and greater convenience. For decades, critics across the political spectrum have reacted to such disruption by urging Congress, the courts, and the enforcement agencies to stop these American success stories by revising antitrust doctrine to protect small businesses rather than the interests of consumers. Using antitrust law to punish pro-competitive behavior makes no more sense today than it did when the government attacked A&P for offering consumers too good a deal on groceries. In addition, antitrust doctrine does not need an overhaul. It is shaped by many economic perspectives, follows no one “School,” and is flexible enough to address any monopoly abuses in today’s economy. It is also well-calibrated to serve its central function: promoting consumer welfare. It does so not only by prohibiting conduct that harms consumers in the long run, but also by avoiding interference with conduct that might appear problematic to non-economists but that demonstrably benefits consumers over time. Antitrust remains a work in progress, but it is far superior to any alternative that the critics propose. More... »

PAGES

1-31

Journal

TITLE

Review of Industrial Organization

ISSUE

N/A

VOLUME

N/A

Identifiers

URI

http://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s11151-019-09685-7

DOI

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11151-019-09685-7

DIMENSIONS

https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1112900708


Indexing Status Check whether this publication has been indexed by Scopus and Web Of Science using the SN Indexing Status Tool
Incoming Citations Browse incoming citations for this publication using opencitations.net

JSON-LD is the canonical representation for SciGraph data.

TIP: You can open this SciGraph record using an external JSON-LD service: JSON-LD Playground Google SDTT

[
  {
    "@context": "https://springernature.github.io/scigraph/jsonld/sgcontext.json", 
    "about": [
      {
        "id": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/1801", 
        "inDefinedTermSet": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/", 
        "name": "Law", 
        "type": "DefinedTerm"
      }, 
      {
        "id": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/18", 
        "inDefinedTermSet": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/", 
        "name": "Law and Legal Studies", 
        "type": "DefinedTerm"
      }
    ], 
    "author": [
      {
        "affiliation": {
          "alternateName": "George Mason University", 
          "id": "https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.22448.38", 
          "name": [
            "Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, Arlington, VA, USA"
          ], 
          "type": "Organization"
        }, 
        "familyName": "Muris", 
        "givenName": "Timothy J.", 
        "type": "Person"
      }, 
      {
        "affiliation": {
          "alternateName": "Sidley Austin", 
          "id": "https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.462806.e", 
          "name": [
            "Sidley Austin LLP, Wasington D.C., USA"
          ], 
          "type": "Organization"
        }, 
        "familyName": "Nuechterlein", 
        "givenName": "Jonathan E.", 
        "type": "Person"
      }
    ], 
    "datePublished": "2019-03-20", 
    "datePublishedReg": "2019-03-20", 
    "description": "Critics from both the right and the left claim that modern antitrust doctrine, rooted in consumer welfare, is inadequate to handle the challenges of the twenty-first century economy. They express nostalgia for 1960s antitrust, when the field had no clear objectives and cases were decided on impressionistic notions of \u201cfairness\u201d and good corporate citizenship. This article exposes the intellectual void at the heart of this new populist movement and begins by following Justice Holmes\u2019 tenet that \u201ca page of history is worth a volume of logic.\u201d More than 80 years ago, the A&P grocery chain was a vertically integrated retailer that made use of unprecedented scale and innovation to offer consumers a wider range of products than the competition and at lower prices. Yet A&P\u2019s very success, which came at the expense of smaller and less efficient competitors, triggered a backlash: first from Congress, in the form of the Robinson\u2013Patman Act, and then from the Justice Department, in the form of successful prosecution under the Sherman Act. These attacks on A&P bear an eerie resemblance to attacks today on leading online innovators. Increasingly integrated and efficient retailers\u2014first A&P; then \u201cbig box\u201d brick-and-mortar stores; and now online retailers\u2014have challenged traditional retail models by offering consumers lower prices and greater convenience. For decades, critics across the political spectrum have reacted to such disruption by urging Congress, the courts, and the enforcement agencies to stop these American success stories by revising antitrust doctrine to protect small businesses rather than the interests of consumers. Using antitrust law to punish pro-competitive behavior makes no more sense today than it did when the government attacked A&P for offering consumers too good a deal on groceries. In addition, antitrust doctrine does not need an overhaul. It is shaped by many economic perspectives, follows no one \u201cSchool,\u201d and is flexible enough to address any monopoly abuses in today\u2019s economy. It is also well-calibrated to serve its central function: promoting consumer welfare. It does so not only by prohibiting conduct that harms consumers in the long run, but also by avoiding interference with conduct that might appear problematic to non-economists but that demonstrably benefits consumers over time. Antitrust remains a work in progress, but it is far superior to any alternative that the critics propose.", 
    "genre": "research_article", 
    "id": "sg:pub.10.1007/s11151-019-09685-7", 
    "inLanguage": [
      "en"
    ], 
    "isAccessibleForFree": false, 
    "isPartOf": [
      {
        "id": "sg:journal.1136721", 
        "issn": [
          "0889-938X", 
          "1573-7160"
        ], 
        "name": "Review of Industrial Organization", 
        "type": "Periodical"
      }
    ], 
    "name": "Antitrust in the Internet Era: The Legacy of United States v. A&P", 
    "pagination": "1-31", 
    "productId": [
      {
        "name": "readcube_id", 
        "type": "PropertyValue", 
        "value": [
          "bbb629975843d5dfb5c67ff5814b6b7493a36bda191f5d50ca3e6e313ce9f3b3"
        ]
      }, 
      {
        "name": "doi", 
        "type": "PropertyValue", 
        "value": [
          "10.1007/s11151-019-09685-7"
        ]
      }, 
      {
        "name": "dimensions_id", 
        "type": "PropertyValue", 
        "value": [
          "pub.1112900708"
        ]
      }
    ], 
    "sameAs": [
      "https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-019-09685-7", 
      "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1112900708"
    ], 
    "sdDataset": "articles", 
    "sdDatePublished": "2019-04-11T12:36", 
    "sdLicense": "https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/", 
    "sdPublisher": {
      "name": "Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project", 
      "type": "Organization"
    }, 
    "sdSource": "s3://com-uberresearch-data-dimensions-target-20181106-alternative/cleanup/v134/2549eaecd7973599484d7c17b260dba0a4ecb94b/merge/v9/a6c9fde33151104705d4d7ff012ea9563521a3ce/jats-lookup/v90/0000000363_0000000363/records_70031_00000003.jsonl", 
    "type": "ScholarlyArticle", 
    "url": "https://link.springer.com/10.1007%2Fs11151-019-09685-7"
  }
]
 

Download the RDF metadata as:  json-ld nt turtle xml License info

HOW TO GET THIS DATA PROGRAMMATICALLY:

JSON-LD is a popular format for linked data which is fully compatible with JSON.

curl -H 'Accept: application/ld+json' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s11151-019-09685-7'

N-Triples is a line-based linked data format ideal for batch operations.

curl -H 'Accept: application/n-triples' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s11151-019-09685-7'

Turtle is a human-readable linked data format.

curl -H 'Accept: text/turtle' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s11151-019-09685-7'

RDF/XML is a standard XML format for linked data.

curl -H 'Accept: application/rdf+xml' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1007/s11151-019-09685-7'


 

This table displays all metadata directly associated to this object as RDF triples.

63 TRIPLES      20 PREDICATES      24 URIs      16 LITERALS      5 BLANK NODES

Subject Predicate Object
1 sg:pub.10.1007/s11151-019-09685-7 schema:about anzsrc-for:18
2 anzsrc-for:1801
3 schema:author Na9abe3b289364991929ec97634059240
4 schema:datePublished 2019-03-20
5 schema:datePublishedReg 2019-03-20
6 schema:description Critics from both the right and the left claim that modern antitrust doctrine, rooted in consumer welfare, is inadequate to handle the challenges of the twenty-first century economy. They express nostalgia for 1960s antitrust, when the field had no clear objectives and cases were decided on impressionistic notions of “fairness” and good corporate citizenship. This article exposes the intellectual void at the heart of this new populist movement and begins by following Justice Holmes’ tenet that “a page of history is worth a volume of logic.” More than 80 years ago, the A&P grocery chain was a vertically integrated retailer that made use of unprecedented scale and innovation to offer consumers a wider range of products than the competition and at lower prices. Yet A&P’s very success, which came at the expense of smaller and less efficient competitors, triggered a backlash: first from Congress, in the form of the Robinson–Patman Act, and then from the Justice Department, in the form of successful prosecution under the Sherman Act. These attacks on A&P bear an eerie resemblance to attacks today on leading online innovators. Increasingly integrated and efficient retailers—first A&P; then “big box” brick-and-mortar stores; and now online retailers—have challenged traditional retail models by offering consumers lower prices and greater convenience. For decades, critics across the political spectrum have reacted to such disruption by urging Congress, the courts, and the enforcement agencies to stop these American success stories by revising antitrust doctrine to protect small businesses rather than the interests of consumers. Using antitrust law to punish pro-competitive behavior makes no more sense today than it did when the government attacked A&P for offering consumers too good a deal on groceries. In addition, antitrust doctrine does not need an overhaul. It is shaped by many economic perspectives, follows no one “School,” and is flexible enough to address any monopoly abuses in today’s economy. It is also well-calibrated to serve its central function: promoting consumer welfare. It does so not only by prohibiting conduct that harms consumers in the long run, but also by avoiding interference with conduct that might appear problematic to non-economists but that demonstrably benefits consumers over time. Antitrust remains a work in progress, but it is far superior to any alternative that the critics propose.
7 schema:genre research_article
8 schema:inLanguage en
9 schema:isAccessibleForFree false
10 schema:isPartOf sg:journal.1136721
11 schema:name Antitrust in the Internet Era: The Legacy of United States v. A&P
12 schema:pagination 1-31
13 schema:productId N2e5848e1b1064ef9b0a645fff2bdadfe
14 N65f238af40ca4eabb18d59313cff04af
15 N68896f4462fc4e38b4e0d5988198feeb
16 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1112900708
17 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-019-09685-7
18 schema:sdDatePublished 2019-04-11T12:36
19 schema:sdLicense https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/
20 schema:sdPublisher N0aff65d9374847e9b1283f0aef01e5c2
21 schema:url https://link.springer.com/10.1007%2Fs11151-019-09685-7
22 sgo:license sg:explorer/license/
23 sgo:sdDataset articles
24 rdf:type schema:ScholarlyArticle
25 N0aff65d9374847e9b1283f0aef01e5c2 schema:name Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project
26 rdf:type schema:Organization
27 N2e5848e1b1064ef9b0a645fff2bdadfe schema:name doi
28 schema:value 10.1007/s11151-019-09685-7
29 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
30 N65f238af40ca4eabb18d59313cff04af schema:name dimensions_id
31 schema:value pub.1112900708
32 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
33 N68896f4462fc4e38b4e0d5988198feeb schema:name readcube_id
34 schema:value bbb629975843d5dfb5c67ff5814b6b7493a36bda191f5d50ca3e6e313ce9f3b3
35 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
36 N7a35bb1ea46b4d6799496eaf5517eefa schema:affiliation https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.22448.38
37 schema:familyName Muris
38 schema:givenName Timothy J.
39 rdf:type schema:Person
40 Na82ad14e840f478eb2cd94210e5678c4 schema:affiliation https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.462806.e
41 schema:familyName Nuechterlein
42 schema:givenName Jonathan E.
43 rdf:type schema:Person
44 Na9abe3b289364991929ec97634059240 rdf:first N7a35bb1ea46b4d6799496eaf5517eefa
45 rdf:rest Nc5f3a1b8dbbe49698e0c797c7f392b7d
46 Nc5f3a1b8dbbe49698e0c797c7f392b7d rdf:first Na82ad14e840f478eb2cd94210e5678c4
47 rdf:rest rdf:nil
48 anzsrc-for:18 schema:inDefinedTermSet anzsrc-for:
49 schema:name Law and Legal Studies
50 rdf:type schema:DefinedTerm
51 anzsrc-for:1801 schema:inDefinedTermSet anzsrc-for:
52 schema:name Law
53 rdf:type schema:DefinedTerm
54 sg:journal.1136721 schema:issn 0889-938X
55 1573-7160
56 schema:name Review of Industrial Organization
57 rdf:type schema:Periodical
58 https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.22448.38 schema:alternateName George Mason University
59 schema:name Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University, Arlington, VA, USA
60 rdf:type schema:Organization
61 https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.462806.e schema:alternateName Sidley Austin
62 schema:name Sidley Austin LLP, Wasington D.C., USA
63 rdf:type schema:Organization
 




Preview window. Press ESC to close (or click here)


...