About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

62 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 1020 (1987)
The Economic Goals of Antitrust: Efficiency, Consumer Welfare, and Technoclogical Progress

handle is hein.journals/nylr62 and id is 1036 raw text is: THE ECONOMIC GOALS OF ANTITRUST: EFFICIENCY, CONSUMER WELFARE, AND TECHNOLOGICAL PROGRESS JOSEPH F. BRODLEY* INTRODUCTION For a generation a passionate debate has divided the antitrust com- munity. Does antitrust law encompass non-economic goals or is the law limited to purely economic objectives, most particularly economic effi- ciency? In recent years efficiency advocates have gained ascendancy, powerfully assisted by the perception that efficiency analysis in antitrust is scientific and rigorous, as contrasted with the softer values of a more inclusive approach that would encompass non-economic values. As a result, legal opinions and academic writings abound with discussions of economic efficiency and the related concept of consumer welfare. But while these terms are much used in antitrust writing, they are little ana- lyzed. The startling result is that efficiency and consumer welfare have become the dominant terms of antitrust discourse without any clear con- sensus as to what they exactly mean. In this Article I attempt to develop a coherent meaning for effi- ciency and consumer welfare as applied to antitrust law, to draw out the policy implications that follow from such an articulation, and to examine whether an antitrust policy expressed purely in these terms can ade- quately achieve antitrust goals. My analysis will suggest that contrary to current usage, efficiency and consumer welfare are not identical, but have distinct meanings, with sometimes conflicting policy implications. Focusing in turn on efficiency and consumer welfare, I argue that both concepts require clarification and more precise definition. Efficiency is not unitary, but breaks down into several differing types of efficiencies, some more vital to antitrust enforcement than others. Consumer welfare in turn is not the identical * Professor and Kenison Distinguished Scholar of Law, Boston University. Helpful com- ments were received from Airlie House Conference commentators Walter Adams, Phillip Areeda, and Jerome Hochberg, and also from Scott Bales, Robert Bone, Ronald Cass, Jane Cohen, Clayton Gillette, Michael Harper, Robert Lande, Robert Marks, Stephen Salop, Louis Schwartz, Robert Seidman, Ingo Vogelsang, and the participants in the Boston University Legal Theory Workshop. Thanks are also due to Beth F. Kirk for valuable research assist- ance, and to the Centre for Socio-Legal Studies of Oxford University, where I did some of the thinking for this Article. 1020 Imaged with the Permission of N.Y.U. Law Review

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most