MANNE Y WRIGHT SOBRE EL USO DEL ANÁLISIS ECONÓMICO EN DERECHO DE LA COMPETENCIA

“economics is not providing adequate tools to identify anticompetitive conduct without systematic error. This is not meant as an attack on economics in antitrust per se... Without a serious methodological commitment to economic science, the incorporation of economics into antitrust is merely a façade allowing regulators and judges to select whatever economic model fits their prior beliefs or policy preferences rather than the model that best fits the real world data. Economic theory remains essential to antitrust law; it is economic analysis that constrains antitrust law and harnesses it so that it is used to protect consumers rather than competitors. And, to be sure, the relationship between economics and antitrust is responsible for the successful evolution of antitrust from its economically incoherent origins to its present state. But in our view, the fundamental challenge for antitrust is one that is created by having “too many theories” without methodological commitments from regulators and courts on how to select between them. The proliferation of economic models that came along with the rise of Post-Chicago economics, integration of game theory into industrial organization, and now increasing calls to incorporate insights from behavioural economics into antitrust and competition policy has led to a state of affairs where a regulator or court has a broad spectrum of models to choose from when analyzing an antitrust issue, but antitrust has not provided that decision-maker with sensible criteria for making that model selection decision. Taken to the extreme, this model selection problem threatens to strip the disciplining force that economics has placed on antitrust law and which was a key part of the successful evolution of that body of law over the last fifty years.

Manne, Geoffrey A. and Wright, Joshua D., Innovation and the Limits of Antitrust. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, Forthcoming; George Mason Law & Economics Research Paper No. 09-54; Lewis & Clark Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-26