Bill Baer argues that the United States’ history with promoting national champions through industrial policy shows how protection and the diminution of competition often backfires on the favored companies and the state. He writes that industrial policy must complement competition policy.
Elizabeth Popp Berman writes that the history of the antimonopoly movement and industrial policy in the United States shows that antitrust and industrial policy, currently considered by many to be in conflict, can complement each other in pursuit of shared goals.
Three antitrust experts review the trends and cases that defined European antitrust and competition in 2024.
Apple’s unfair trading conditions and the Digital Markets Act
Alessia...
The ongoing debates about the EU’s competition policy have predominantly focused on Western Europe, overlooking the dynamic growth and unique challenges of Central and Eastern Europe, writes Maciej Bernatt and Kati Cseres. This oversight risks deepening economic disparities and undermining the EU’s goals of unity, democracy, and innovation-driven growth.
New research from Christopher Stewart, John Kepler, and Charles McClure shows that thousands of large mergers and acquisitions bypass antitrust review because current regulatory thresholds ignore intangible assets like intellectual property and customer data. These unreported deals, particularly in tech and pharma sectors, show signs of being more anticompetitive - with higher premiums paid, increased market power for acquirers, and evidence of "killer acquisitions" in pharmaceuticals.
Despite fundamental changes in the real economy, and strides in the regulation of privacy, data, and digital markets, antitrust practice and discourse in Europe are still conducted in “safe spaces” where the antitrust community resists change and remains attached to neoliberal approaches and efficiency goals. But the Trump Administration will not just signify a wholesale return to pre-NeoBrandeisian times (as many in Europe hope): indeed Europeans hiding in their “safe spaces” may well be surprised, writes Cristina Caffarra.
In new research, William Christopher Gerken, Steven Irlbeck, Marcus Painter and Guangli Zhang track the movements of Securities and Exchange Commission-associated smartphone devices to shed light on the SEC’s investigatory process and understand how office visits from its staff alter firm behavior and outcomes.
This research note employs the quantitative approach developed by Francesco Trebbi, Miao Ben Zhang, and Michael Simkovic (2023) to provide a descriptive overview of the main differences in costs of regulatory compliance across U.S. states for the year 2014 and over the period 2002-2014. These descriptive stylized facts can be useful in grounding extant discussion on regulatory compliance burden across different U.S. regions and over time and presents both unconditional results and results controlling for state industry composition.