Why This Blog?

3

There is an issue that– while extremely important today–receives little attention not only in the traditional media but also in the blogosphere, and academia: the subversion of competition by special interests. Following Adam Smith, the vast majority of economists believe that competition is the essential ingredient that makes a market economy work. Yet, what ensures that markets are indeed competitive? While a competitive market system ends up benefiting everyone, nobody benefits enough to spend resources to lobby for it. Business has very powerful lobbies; competitive markets do not. The diffuse constituency which is in favor of competitive markets has few incentives to mobilize in its defense.

This is where the media can play a crucial role. By gathering information on the nature and cost of this subversion of competition, by distributing this information among the public at large, and by making this information salient, media outlets can reduce the power of vested interests. By exposing the distortions created by special interests, they can create the political demand for a competitive capitalism.

This is the goal of our ProMarket blog: to educate the public about the many ways competition can be subverted. In this exercise our only goal is to make the market system work better. In the finest University of Chicago tradition, we will do it with data. We will try to do it with the rigor of the best academic work, but without the pedantry that often accompanies it. This blog will collect opinions, summarize work, and report on relevant research by Chicago faculty and Stigler fellows. We will use every medium at our disposal, because the message is our medium.

It is only fitting that this blog is sponsored by the Stigler Center at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. The literature on the subversion of competition by special interests was started 45 years ago by George Stigler himself. We hope to live up to his legacy.

The Stigler Center will also produce (and the blog will report) several indexes that summarize the impact of concentration and the distortions in competition, both in business sector and in the political arena. Given the electoral season, our first index will analyze the concentration of donations to presidential candidates: a Campaign Financing Capture Index. The index is explained in all the details here. In the best economic tradition, we think that words are cheap: we let money speak. Large political donations to a specific candidate are rarely made to promote the public good. If that was the donors’ only purpose, they will be happy to remain anonymous. But this is hardly the case.

But … ce n’est qu’un début. Enjoy and sign up in the Sidebar for live updates!

Previous articleIs Fraud in the Financial Sector a “Bug” or a “Feature”?
Next articleDonald Trump, Crony Capitalist
Luigi Zingales is the Robert C. Mc Cormack Distinguished Service Professor of Entrepreneurship and Finance at the University of Chicago - Booth School of Business. He is a Research Associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research, a Research Fellow of the Center for Economic Policy Research, and a Fellow of the European Corporate Governance Institute. His research interests span from corporate governance to financial development, from political economy to the economic effects of culture. He has published extensively in the major economics and financial journals. In 2003, Zingales received the Bernacer Prize for the best European young financial economist. In 2013 he has been named founding director of the Center for Economic Analysis of the PCAOB. In 2014 he served as President of the American Finance Association. He is co-author with Raghuram G. Rajan of “Saving Capitalism from the Capitalists” (2003) and author of “A Capitalism for the People: Recapturing the Lost Genius of American Prosperity” (2012). His latest book is “Europa o no” (2014).

3 COMMENTS

  1. This is really amazing, “Is fraud in the financial sector a ‘bug’ or a ‘feature'”. I wonder however if it’s like doctors and malpractice, in that the Urban Legend is that the ‘good doctors’ who do lots of volume will end up sued for malpractice more than the ‘mediocre doctors’ who don’t practice that much. It’s the law of large numbers. Just a thought, and I would imagine the answer is that it’s not.

Comments are closed.

Exit mobile version