Institutional Design and Federal Antitrust Enforcement Agencies: Renovation or Revolution?
Michael McFalls, Sep 11, 2014
Institutional design, properly defined, both circumscribes and defines the practice of antitrust law in the United States. The structure of antitrust law and enforcement in the United States reflects so many disparate strands of political thought and expression that it seems almost impossible that it could function, much less cohere. But that very mixture of currents and cross-currents is quintessentially American — and keeps the importance of institutional design very much alive and significant in U.S. antitrust law. And although fundamental reinvention is unlikely, incremental changes are both possible and desirable, particularly those within the discretion of the enforcement agencies themselves. Below, we discuss what kinds of changes may be useful for the enforcement agencies to consider.
Featured News
Senate Democrats Urge DOJ Investigation into Alleged Big Oil Collusion
May 30, 2024 by
CPI
ConocoPhillips Acquires Marathon Oil for $22.5 Billion in Major Energy Sector Consolidation
May 29, 2024 by
CPI
Judge Denies Amazon’s Bid to Dismiss FTC Lawsuit Over Prime Membership Practices
May 29, 2024 by
CPI
Germany and France Advocate for Major EU Competition Reform
May 29, 2024 by
CPI
Equifax Accused of Monopolizing Employment Verification Market in New Suit
May 29, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Merger Guidelines Retrospective
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
Mergers of Complements
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
Personality Traits, Private Equity, and Merger Analysis
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
The 2023 Merger Guidelines: Lessons in the Importance of Incipiency, Modern Economics, and Monopsony
May 21, 2024 by
CPI
The 2023 Merger Guidelines: Sharpening Merger Analysis
May 21, 2024 by
CPI