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 N6c8161dfc6a14eddbc1cb1291f5e3816
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 N305c16f865634a5da721b1e91c00380d
14 N4e0f44de91484c4e9cb1f2463ded9bf6
15 N8d2e6000ff134b81902753f3c5adc0ce
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 N8f8c840e2585476bb8f4469ed148d5f0
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 N305c16f865634a5da721b1e91c00380d schema:name doi
26 schema:value 10.1007/s11151-019-09685-7
27 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
28 N3e05589c2310470cafd80c0b33442a0a schema:affiliation https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.462806.e
29 schema:familyName Nuechterlein
30 schema:givenName Jonathan E.
31 rdf:type schema:Person
32 N4e0f44de91484c4e9cb1f2463ded9bf6 schema:name readcube_id
33 schema:value bbb629975843d5dfb5c67ff5814b6b7493a36bda191f5d50ca3e6e313ce9f3b3
34 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
35 N62c8ed1453f5424e9c9e5aa30efe7ab7 rdf:first N3e05589c2310470cafd80c0b33442a0a
36 rdf:rest rdf:nil
37 N6c4b68e317b041469ec3c77c6dfa2ad9 schema:affiliation https://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.22448.38
38 schema:familyName Muris
39 schema:givenName Timothy J.
40 rdf:type schema:Person
41 N6c8161dfc6a14eddbc1cb1291f5e3816 rdf:first N6c4b68e317b041469ec3c77c6dfa2ad9
42 rdf:rest N62c8ed1453f5424e9c9e5aa30efe7ab7
43 N8d2e6000ff134b81902753f3c5adc0ce schema:name dimensions_id
44 schema:value pub.1112900708
45 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
46 N8f8c840e2585476bb8f4469ed148d5f0 schema:name Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project
47 rdf:type schema:Organization
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)


...