Michael Salinger, Apr 01, 2010
In both consumer protection and antitrust, the use of standard economic analysis has generally been to limit the scope of government intervention. The interest in behavioral economics (and some of the resistance to it) stems from the belief that it justifies intervention that conventional economic analysis suggests is unwarranted. Proponents see behavioral economics as the antidote to the Chicago School poison. Opponents see it as a mutated bacterium, resistant to the economic medicine that has led to improved policy. In this article, I will provide some background on behavioral economics and assess what insights it provides for consumer protection and antitrust policy.
Featured News
States Vow to Continue Antitrust Fight Against Live Nation Despite DOJ Settlement
Mar 9, 2026 by
CPI
White House Cybersecurity Plan Calls on Private Sector to Partner on US Operations
Mar 9, 2026 by
CPI
Big Tech Data Centers Become Wartime Targets After Drone Strikes on Amazon Sites
Mar 9, 2026 by
CPI
Anthropic Sues Pentagon to Block National Security Blacklist Over AI Restrictions
Mar 9, 2026 by
CPI
A $300 Billion Crypto Market Is Propping Up US Government Debt
Mar 9, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Behavioral Economics
Feb 22, 2026 by
CPI
Behavioral Antitrust in 2026
Feb 22, 2026 by
Maurice Stucke
Behavioral Economics in Competition Policy: Going Beyond Inertia and Framing Effects
Feb 22, 2026 by
Annemieke Tuinstra & Richard May
Agreeing to Disagree in Antitrust
Feb 22, 2026 by
Jorge Padilla
Recognizing What’s Around the Corner: Merger Control, Capabilities, and the New Nature of Potential Competition
Feb 22, 2026 by
Magdalena Kuyterink & David J. Teece