The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Anti-trust Policy

  • Oliver E. Williamson
Reference work entry


Although many countries have adopted antitrust statutes and have an active antitrust enforcement programme, the United States was the first to enact national legislation on monopolies and monopolization. To be sure, English common law dealt with some of these matters long before the Sherman Act was passed in 1890. But the United States was and remains a leader in antitrust legislation, enforcement and research. The discussion herein focuses on the development of antitrust economics and related changes in antitrust enforcement within the United States.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Bain, J. 1956. Barriers to new competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bain, J. 1959. Industrial organization. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  3. Berle, A.A., and G.C. Means. 1932. The modern corporation and private property. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  4. Bork, R.H. 1978. The antitrust paradox. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  5. Chamberlin, E. 1933. Theory of monopolistic competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Coase, R.H. 1937. The nature of the firm. Economica 4: 386–405. Reprinted in Readings in price theory, ed. G.J. Stigler and K.E. Boulding. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin, 1952.Google Scholar
  7. Dixit, A. 1979. A model of duopoly suggesting a theory of entry barriers. Bell Journal of Economics 10: 20–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dixit, A. 1980. The role of investment in entry deterrence. Economic Journal 90: 95–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eaton, B.C., and R.G. Lipsey. 1980. Exit barriers are entry barriers: The durability of capital. Bell Journal of Economics 11: 721–729.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eaton, B.C., and R.G. Lipsey. 1981. Capital commitment and entry equilibrium. Bell Journal of Economics 12: 593–604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fisher, A., and R. Lande. 1983. Efficiency considerations in merger enforcement. California Law Review 71: 1580–1696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Grossman, G.M. and Richardson, J.D. 1985. Strategic trade policy: A survey of issues and early analysis. Special Papers in International Economics No. 15, Princeton University.Google Scholar
  13. Klein, B., and K.B. Leffler. 1981. The role of market forces in assuring contractual performance. Journal of Political Economy 89: 615–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kreps, D.M., and R. Wilson. 1982. Reputation and imperfect information. Journal of Economic Theory 27: 253–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Liebeler, W.C. 1978. Market power and competitive superiority in concentrated industries. UCLA Law Review 25: 1231–1300.Google Scholar
  16. Mason, E. 1957. Economic concentration and the monopoly problem. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Milgrom, P., and J. Roberts. 1982. Predation, reputation, and entry deterrence. Journal of Economic Theory 27: 280–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Modigliani, F. 1958. New developments on the oligopoly front. Journal of Political Economy 66: 215–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Muris, T.J. 1979. The efficiency defense under section 7 of the Clayton Act. Case Western Reserve Law Review 30: 381–432.Google Scholar
  20. Ordover, J.A., and R.D. Willig. 1981. An economic definition of predatory product innovation. In Strategic views of predation, ed. S. Salop, 301–396. Washington, DC: Federal Trade Commission.Google Scholar
  21. Robinson, J. 1933. The economics of imperfect competition. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Salop, S., and D. Scheffman. 1983. Raising rivals’ costs. American Economic Review 73: 267–271.Google Scholar
  23. Spence, A.M. 1977. Entry, capacity investment and oligopolistic pricing. Bell Journal of Economics 8: 534–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Stigler, G.J. 1952. The case against big business. Fortune 47, May, 123 et seq.Google Scholar
  25. Stigler, G.J. 1955. Mergers and preventive antitrust policy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 104: 176–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Stigler, G.J. 1968. The organization of industry. Homewood: Richard D. Irwin.Google Scholar
  27. Sylos-Labini, P. 1956. Oligopoly and Technical Progress. Trans. Elizabeth Henderson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962.Google Scholar
  28. Telser, L. 1960. Why should manufacturers want fair trade? Journal of Law and Economics 3: 86–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Telser, L. 1981. A theory of self-enforcing agreements. Journal of Business 53: 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. von Weizsäcker, C.C. 1980. Barriers to entry. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Williamson, O.E. 1968a. Wage rates as a barrier to entry: The Pennington case in perspective. Quarterly Journal of Economics 82: 85–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Williamson, O.E. 1968b. Economies as an antitrust defense: The welfare tradeoffs. American Economic Review 58: 18–35.Google Scholar
  33. Williamson, O.E. 1979. Assessing vertical market restrictions. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 127: 953–993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Williamson, O.E. 1983. Credible commitments: Using hostages to support exchange. American Economic Review 73: 519–540.Google Scholar
  35. Williamson, O.E. 1985. The economic institutions of capitalism. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Oliver E. Williamson
    • 1
  1. 1.