The Future of Antitrust: Ideology vs. Legislative Intent

For antitrust to survive the next century, the enforcement scheme must remain responsive to the needs of a broad, pluralistic constituency. Interpretations of the Sherman Act have shifted over the years with changing economic and social philosophies. The interpretive liberty assumed by antitrust enf...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Antitrust bulletin 1990-10, Vol.35 (3), p.575-600
Main Author: Rodino, Peter W.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Acquisitions & mergers
Antitrust
Antitrust laws
Litigation
Monopolies
Policy making
Price fixing
Restraint of trade
State court decisions
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:For antitrust to survive the next century, the enforcement scheme must remain responsive to the needs of a broad, pluralistic constituency. Interpretations of the Sherman Act have shifted over the years with changing economic and social philosophies. The interpretive liberty assumed by antitrust enforcers in recent years might constrain the interpretive discretion of those who follow. Radical departures from congressional intent may push Congress to legislate with greater specificity, removing much of the interpretive latitude that has characterized antitrust for 100 years. Congress has a special constitutionally delegated responsibility to use its oversight and lawmaking powers to ensure that antitrust retains is relevance and effectiveness in an evolving economic world. However, Congress itself is constrained in performing that task if those who enforce the antitrust laws do not adhere to legislative intent.
ISSN:0003-603X
1930-7969
DOI:10.1177/0003603X9003500302