Archives For Friedrich Hayek

I remain deeply skeptical of any antitrust challenge to the AT&T/Time Warner merger.  Vertical mergers like this one between a content producer and a distributor are usually efficiency-enhancing.  The theories of anticompetitive harm here rely on a number of implausible assumptions — e.g., that the combined company would raise content prices (currently set at profit-maximizing levels so that any price increase would reduce profits on content) in order to impair rivals in the distribution market and enhance profits there.  So I’m troubled that DOJ seems poised to challenge the merger.

I am, however, heartened — I think — by a speech Assistant Attorney General Makan Delrahim recently delivered at the ABA’s Antitrust Fall Forum. The crux of the speech, which is worth reading in its entirety, was that behavioral remedies — effectively having the government regulate a merged company’s day-to-day business decisions — are almost always inappropriate in merger challenges.

That used to be DOJ’s official position.  The Antitrust Division’s 2004 Remedies Guide proclaimed that “[s]tructural remedies are preferred to conduct remedies in merger cases because they are relatively clean and certain, and generally avoid costly government entanglement in the market.”

During the Obama administration, DOJ changed its tune.  Its 2011 Remedies Guide removed the statement quoted above as well as an assertion that behavioral remedies would be appropriate only in limited circumstances.  The 2011 Guide instead remained neutral on the choice between structural and conduct remedies, explaining that “[i]n certain factual circumstances, structural relief may be the best choice to preserve competition.  In a different set of circumstances, behavioral relief may be the best choice.”  The 2011 Guide also deleted the older Guide’s discussion of the limitations of conduct remedies.

Not surprisingly in light of the altered guidance, several of the Obama DOJ’s merger challenges—Ticketmaster/Live Nation, Comcast/NBC Universal, and Google/ITA Software, for example—resulted in settlements involving detailed and significant regulation of the combined firm’s conduct.  The settlements included mandatory licensing requirements, price regulation, compulsory arbitration of pricing disputes with recipients of mandated licenses, obligations to continue to develop and support certain products, the establishment of informational firewalls between divisions of the merged companies, prohibitions on price and service discrimination among customers, and various reporting requirements.

Settlements of such sort move antitrust a long way from the state of affairs described by then-professor Stephen Breyer, who wrote in his classic book Regulation and Its Reform:

[I]n principle the antitrust laws differ from classical regulation both in their aims and in their methods.  The antitrust laws seek to create or maintain the conditions of a competitive marketplace rather than replicate the results of competition or correct for the defects of competitive markets.  In doing so, they act negatively, through a few highly general provisions prohibiting certain forms of private conduct.  They do not affirmatively order firms to behave in specified ways; for the most part, they tell private firms what not to do . . . .  Only rarely do the antitrust enforcement agencies create the detailed web of affirmative legal obligations that characterizes classical regulation.

I am pleased to see Delrahim signaling a move away from behavioral remedies.  As Alden Abbott and I explained in our article, Recognizing the Limits of Antitrust: The Roberts Court Versus the Enforcement Agencies,

[C]onduct remedies present at least four difficulties from a limits of antitrust perspective.  First, they may thwart procompetitive conduct by the regulated firm.  When it comes to regulating how a firm interacts with its customers and rivals, it is extremely difficult to craft rules that will ban the bad without also precluding the good.  For example, requiring a merged firm to charge all customers the same price, a commonly imposed conduct remedy, may make it hard for the firm to serve clients who impose higher costs and may thwart price discrimination that actually enhances overall market output.  Second, conduct remedies entail significant direct implementation costs.  They divert enforcers’ attention away from ferreting out anticompetitive conduct elsewhere in the economy and require managers of regulated firms to focus on appeasing regulators rather than on meeting their customers’ desires.  Third, conduct remedies tend to grow stale.  Because competitive conditions are constantly changing, a conduct remedy that seems sensible when initially crafted may soon turn out to preclude beneficial business behavior.  Finally, by transforming antitrust enforcers into regulatory agencies, conduct remedies invite wasteful lobbying and, ultimately, destructive agency capture.

The first three of these difficulties are really aspects of F.A. Hayek’s famous knowledge problem.  I was thus particularly heartened by this part of Delrahim’s speech:

The economic liberty approach to industrial organization is also good economic policy.  F. A. Hayek won the 1974 Nobel Prize in economics for his work on the problems of central planning and the benefits of a decentralized free market system.  The price system of the free market, he explained, operates as a mechanism for communicating disaggregated information.  “[T]he ultimate decisions must be left to the people who are familiar with the[] circumstances.”  Regulation, I humbly submit in contrast, involves an arbiter unfamiliar with the circumstances that cannot possibly account for the wealth of information and dynamism that the free market incorporates.

So why the reservation in my enthusiasm?  Because eschewing conduct remedies may result in barring procompetitive mergers that might have been allowed with behavioral restraints.  If antitrust enforcers are going to avoid conduct remedies on Hayekian and Public Choice grounds, then they should challenge a merger only if they are pretty darn sure it presents a substantial threat to competition.

Delrahim appears to understand the high stakes of a “no behavioral remedies” approach to merger review:  “To be crystal clear, [having a strong presumption against conduct remedies] cuts both ways—if a merger is illegal, we should only accept a clean and complete solution, but if the merger is legal we should not impose behavioral conditions just because we can do so to expand our power and because the merging parties are willing to agree to get their merger through.”

The big question is whether the Trump DOJ will refrain from challenging mergers that do not pose a clear and significant threat to competition and consumer welfare.  On that matter, the jury is out.

William C. MacLeod is a partner at Kelley, Drye & Warren LLP, where he chairs the firm’s Antitrust and Competition practice group. He is a former director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the FTC.

It is only with hindsight that we can appreciate the naïveté of conventional wisdom. In 1970, when Fred McChesney left Holy Cross College, serious economists were advocating the dismantling of large American companies, supposedly because they had grown too large to compete effectively.  Regulations were multiplying, as were the bureaucracies Congress created to impose them. OSHA, EPA, CPSC, to name a few, were reordering behavior from the factory floor to the family room. A Republican president outdid them all with an executive order freezing wages and prices across the economy, divorcing the dollar from the gold standard, and taxing imports to protect US producers. These measures met the acclaim of the intelligentsia and the media by and large. The learned classes were already concerned that communist economies were performing better than the capitalism in the US.

The legal profession offered a coveted career in those days of expanding government. A regulatory state needs tens of thousands lawyers to promulgate, enforce, observe and resist the rules that direct economic activity and restrict property rights. Fresh out of college, Fred wanted to be a lawyer. He left for the Ivy League and entertained visions of practice in elite institutions of law. The visions evaporated in the drudgery of cases. Fortunately for us, Fred found that preparing for a traditional practice neither challenged his intellect nor inspired his passion.

For those who knew Fred, whose passion for good people and great ideas was unmatched, it is no surprise that the encounter that changed his life came in an economics class. Nor is it a surprise, for those who have heard Louis DeAlessi, that the class was his course in price theory. There Fred started to explore the myriad ways in which people enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or maximize utility within budget constraints, as the economists eloquently put it). Many of those pursuits, this young Washingtonian saw, found riches and faced ruin on Capitol Hill.

Louis told Fred of a place not far away where a future Nobel laureate, James Buchanan, had broken ground in the largely uncharted territory of public choice. Fred packed his bags for Charlottesville and the University of Virginia. By that time, Buchanan had decamped, but UVA remained a hub of the discipline that explored the economic implications of public and private ownership of property, and the costs of collective control of the means of production. Among their many accomplishments, the economists in Rouss Hall examined the Soviet economy through the lens of their new learning, and they were among the first to predict the economic decline of that supposed juggernaut. Rumor has it that they were working for the CIA, economic spies at your service. If you wanted to learn the economic consequences of government activity, UVA was a great place to go.

That is why I went, that is where I met Fred, and that is when he became my friend for life. Together we studied, wrote, worked, and spun rock and roll records, sometimes all at once, as we tried to absorb the wisdom of Bill Breit, Ken Elzinga, Roland McKean, John Moore, Warren Nutter, Roger Sherman and Leland Yeager. We treated the radio station like a lending library for oldies unattainable anywhere else. We took our final exam in public finance the gray day after Bobby Darren died. And we learned to appreciate the magic of markets. Perhaps most gratifying, we saw weary refuges return from Washington’s war on free markets, every one sadder, wiser, and ready to teach a new generation that Hayek and Friedman were right. Not even brilliant believers in the market can run it better than free customers and competitors can.

Charlottesville was paradise, but it couldn’t hold Fred. That great academic entrepreneur and talent scout, Henry Manne, looked to UVA for the core of his team at the Law and Economics Center in the University of Miami. Fred was one of Henry’s first recruits. A year later, I was one of Fred’s. He returned to Charlottesville, helped me pack my old Ford, and joined me for a twenty-four-hour rolling concert with Dion, Chubby, Fats, the Marvelettes, Ronettes and Searchers serenading the countryside all the way.

We enjoyed every minute of L&EC. When judges and professors came to Miami to teach and learn economics at Henry’s Institutes, we welcomed them, and Fred made more friends for life. He wrote his dissertation and published a pathbreaking study with Tim Muris on the economic effects of legal restrictions in the legal profession. Fred joined the law review, played with the champions of UM Intramural Softball, acquired academic honors, and landed a clerkship in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Then the elite law firms came calling, but a life of law practice had gained no power over Fred after he’d seen economics. Tim Muris lured him to the FTC, where Fred evaluated enforcement proposals with the eye of an economics professor and supervised the Commission’s advocacy of competition where public and private barriers had kept it at bay. A career capstone for many a student of law and economics, wielding the power of the government was not what Fred wanted to do. He wanted to explain it. He left the FTC and embarked on the career that would make his own name in public choice economics.

I cannot do justice to the body of Fred’s prodigious scholarly contributions in this note. Instead, I will describe just one and invite you to sample another.

To frame the first, remember (as Ken Elzinga’s students all do) Alfred Marshall’s famous illustration of supply and demand: the two forces are like blades of a scissors, neither of which can serve without the other. Public choice for years had recognized how the economic incentives of individuals in the private and public sectors could create thriving throngs of rent seekers, bent on shaping rules to their benefit. One would have thought that the counterpart would have been equally obvious to political economists, but it wasn’t. The literature had largely neglected the other blade of the scissors, until Fred described it in Money for Nothing, Politicians, Rent Extraction, and Political Extortion, which explained that rent seekers need scarce resources. Of course, no entity can create scarcity better than government can. Its ability to do so, Fred observed, spawned eager rent extractors, as well as rent seekers. People with the power to take property or impair its full enjoyment could exact payments simply by threatening to do it. They could even forbear – do nothing – and still reap rewards of extraction, just by posing the threat. If scarcity can be made, and government has been doing it for centuries, markets will form on both sides of it. A young Fred McChesney had lived through a painful episode of socially engineered scarcity in the 1970s. He wrote the book on it twenty years later.

Finally, for an invitation to the economics of property rights, here is a link to a lecture Fred gave thirty years ago in the heart of a country he loved but could not explain. The setting was France, and at the time a socialist government was taking property rights from the private sector and appropriating them for a public purpose. You can see in the lecture that Fred was pondering the mystery he later solved in Money for Nothing. French rent creators were keeping seekers and extractors fully occupied. Consumers and sellers of goods and services suffered the consequences.

A new administration in France is still struggling to repair the damage of the rent creation in the 1980s. Meanwhile, back in the USA, as a new tax code makes its way through the halls of Congress, we all would do well to watch out for politicians, extortion, and rent extraction. They could be coming to a wallet near you.

Thanks, Fred.  We owe you a lot of rent.

Yours always,

Bill MacLeod

My new book, How to Regulate: A Guide for Policymakers, will be published in a few weeks.  A while back, I promised a series of posts on the book’s key chapters.  I posted an overview of the book and a description of the book’s chapter on externalities.  I then got busy on another writing project (on horizontal shareholdings—more on that later) and dropped the ball.  Today, I resume my book summary with some thoughts from the book’s chapter on public goods.

With most goods, the owner can keep others from enjoying what she owns, and, if one person enjoys the good, no one else can do so.  Consider your coat or your morning cup of Starbucks.  You can prevent me from wearing your coat or drinking your coffee, and if you choose to let me wear the coat or drink the coffee, it’s not available to anyone else.

There are some amenities, though, that are “non-excludable,” meaning that the owner can’t prevent others from enjoying them, and “non-rivalrous,” meaning that one person’s consumption of them doesn’t prevent others from enjoying them as well.  National defense and local flood control systems (levees, etc.) are like this.  So are more mundane things like public art projects and fireworks displays.  Amenities that are both non-excludable and non-rivalrous are “public goods.”

[NOTE:  Amenities that are either non-excludable or non-rivalrous, but not both, are “quasi-public goods.”  Such goods include excludable but non-rivalrous “club goods” (e.g., satellite radio programming) and non-excludable but rivalrous “commons goods” (e.g., public fisheries).  The public goods chapter of How to Regulate addresses both types of quasi-public goods, but I won’t discuss them here.]

The primary concern with public goods is that they will be underproduced.  That’s because the producer, who must bear all the cost of producing the good, cannot exclude benefit recipients who do not contribute to the good’s production and thus cannot capture many of the benefits of his productive efforts.

Suppose, for example, that a levee would cost $5 million to construct and would create $10 million of benefit by protecting 500 homeowners from expected losses of $20,000 each (i.e., the levee would eliminate a 10% chance of a big flood that would cause each homeowner a $200,000 loss).  To maximize social welfare, the levee should be built.  But no single homeowner has an incentive to build the levee.  At least 250 homeowners would need to combine their resources to make the levee project worthwhile for participants (250 * $20,000 in individual benefit = $5 million), but most homeowners would prefer to hold out and see if their neighbors will finance the levee project without their help.  The upshot is that the levee never gets built, even though its construction is value-enhancing.

Economists have often jumped from the observation that public goods are susceptible to underproduction to the conclusion that the government should tax people and use the revenues to provide public goods.  Consider, for example, this passage from a law school textbook by several renowned economists:

It is apparent that public goods will not be adequately supplied by the private sector. The reason is plain: because people can’t be excluded from using public goods, they can’t be charged money for using them, so a private supplier can’t make money from providing them. … Because public goods are generally not adequately supplied by the private sector, they have to be supplied by the public sector.

[Howell E. Jackson, Louis Kaplow, Steven Shavell, W. Kip Viscusi, & David Cope, Analytical Methods for Lawyers 362-63 (2003) (emphasis added).]

That last claim seems demonstrably false.   Continue Reading…

Levi A. Russell is Assistant Professor, Agricultural & Applied Economics, University of Georgia and a blogger at Farmer Hayek.

Commenting on Microsoft’s antitrust suit 18 years ago, Milton Friedman said the following:

Your industry, the computer industry, moves so much more rapidly than the legal process, that by the time this suit is over, who knows what the shape of the industry will be.

Though the legal process seems to be moving quickly in the cases of Dow/Dupont, ChemChina/Syngenta, and Bayer/Monsanto, seed technology is moving fast as well. With recent breakthroughs in gene editing, seed technology will be more dynamic, cheaper, and likely subject to far less regulation than the current transgenic technology.

GMO seeds produced using current techniques are primarily designed with specific insect control and herbicide tolerance. Gene editing has the potential to go much further by creating drought and disease tolerance as well as improving yield. It’s difficult to know precisely how this new technology will be integrated into the industry, but its effects are likely to promote innovation from outside the three large firms that will result from the mergers and acquisitions mentioned above.

As in the food industry, small gene editing startups will be able to develop new traits with the intention of being acquired by one of the large firms in the industry. By allowing small firms to enter the seed biotech industry, gene editing will provide the sort of external innovation Joanna Shepherd notes is so important in understanding antitrust cases.

Levi A. Russell is Assistant Professor, Agricultural & Applied Economics, University of Georgia and a blogger at Farmer Hayek.

Though concentration seems to be an increasingly popular metric for discussing antitrust policy (a backward move in my opinion, given the theoretical work by Harold Demsetz and others many years ago in this area), contestability is still the standard for evaluating antitrust issues from an economic standpoint. Contestability theory, most closely associated with William Baumol, rests on three primary principles. A market is perfectly contestable if 1) new entrants are not at a cost disadvantage to incumbents, 2) there are no barriers to entry or exit, and 3) there are no sunk costs. In this post, I discuss these conditions in relation to recent mergers and acquisitions in the agricultural chemical and biotech industry.

Contestability is rightly understood as a spectrum. While no industry is perfectly contestable, we expect that markets in which barriers to entry or exit are low, sunk costs are low, and new entrants can easily produce at similar cost to incumbents would be more innovative and that prices would be closer to marginal costs than in other industries. Certainly the agricultural chemical and biotech space does not appear to be very contestable, given the conditions above. There are significant R&D costs associated with the creation of new chemistries and new seed traits. The production and distribution of these products are likely to be characterized by significant economies of scale. Thus, the three conditions listed above are not met, and indeed the industry seems to be characterized by very low contestability. We would expect, then, that these mergers and acquisitions would drive up the prices of the companies’ products, leading to higher monopoly profits. Indeed, one study conducted at Texas A&M University finds that, as a result of the Bayer-Monsanto acquisition and DuPont/Pioneer merger with Dow, corn, soybean, and cotton prices will rise by an estimated 2.3%, 1.9%, and 18.2%, respectively.

These estimates are certainly concerning, especially given the current state of the agricultural economy. As the authors of the Texas A&M study point out, these estimates provide a justification for antitrust authorities to examine the merger and acquisition cases further. However, our dependence on the contestability concept as it pertains to the real world should also be scrutinized. To do so, we can examine other industries in which, according to the standard model of contestability, we would expect to find high barriers to entry or exit, significant sunk costs, and significant cost disadvantages for incumbents.

This chart, assembled by the American Enterprise Institute using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows the changes in prices of several consumer goods and services from 1996 to 2016, compared with CPI inflation. Industries in which there are high barriers to entry or exit, significant sunk costs, and significant cost disadvantages for new entrants such as automobiles, wireless service, and TVs have seen their prices plummet relative to inflation over the 20 year period. There has also been significant product innovation in these industries over the time period.

Disallowing mergers or acquisitions that will create synergies that lead to further innovation or lower cost is not an improvement in economic efficiency. The transgenic seeds created by some of these companies have allowed farmers to use less-toxic pesticides, providing both private and public benefits. Thus, the higher prices projected by the A&M study might be justified on efficiency grounds. The R&D performed by these firms has led to new pesticide chemistries that have allowed farmers to deal with changes in the behavior of insect populations and will likely allow them to handle issues of pesticide resistance in plants and insects in the future.

What does the empirical evidence on trends in prices and the value of these agricultural firms’ innovations described above imply about contestability and its relation to antitrust enforcement? Contestability should be understood not as a static concept, but as a dynamic one. Competition, more broadly, is the constant striving to outdo competitors and to capture economic profit, not a set of conditions used to analyze a market via a snapshot in time. A proper understanding of competition as a dynamic concept leads us to the following conclusion: for a market to be contestable such that incumbents are incentivized to behave in a competitive manner, the cost advantages and barriers to entry or exit enjoyed by incumbents must be equal to or less than an entrepreneur’s expectation of economic profit associated with entry.  Thus, a commitment to property rights by antitrust courts and avoidance of excessive licensure, intellectual property, and economic regulation by the legislative and executive branches is sufficient from an economic perspective to ensure a reasonable degree of contestability in markets.

In my next post I will discuss a source of disruptive technology that will likely provide some competitive pressure on the firms in these mergers and acquisitions in the near future.

Thanks to Truth on the Market for the opportunity to guest blog, and to ICLE for inviting me to join as a Senior Scholar! I’m honoured to be involved with both of these august organizations.

In Brussels, the talk of the town is that the European Commission (“Commission”) is casting a new eye on the old antitrust conjecture that prophesizes a negative relationship between industry concentration and innovation. This issue arises in the context of the review of several mega-mergers in the pharmaceutical and AgTech (i.e., seed genomics, biochemicals, “precision farming,” etc.) industries.

The antitrust press reports that the Commission has shown signs of interest for the introduction of a new theory of harm: the Significant Impediment to Industry Innovation (“SIII”) theory, which would entitle the remediation of mergers on the sole ground that a transaction significantly impedes innovation incentives at the industry level. In a recent ICLE White Paper, I discuss the desirability and feasibility of the introduction of this doctrine for the assessment of mergers in R&D-driven industries.

The introduction of SIII analysis in EU merger policy would no doubt be a sea change, as compared to past decisional practice. In previous cases, the Commission has paid heed to the effects of a merger on incentives to innovate, but the assessment has been limited to the effect on the innovation incentives of the merging parties in relation to specific current or future products. The application of the SIII theory, however, would entail an assessment of a possible reduction of innovation in (i) a given industry as a whole; and (ii) not in relation to specific product applications.

The SIII theory would also be distinct from the innovation markets” framework occasionally applied in past US merger policy and now marginalized. This framework considers the effect of a merger on separate upstream “innovation markets,i.e., on the R&D process itself, not directly linked to a downstream current or future product market. Like SIII, innovation markets analysis is interesting in that the identification of separate upstream innovation markets implicitly recognises that the players active in those markets are not necessarily the same as those that compete with the merging parties in downstream product markets.

SIII is way more intrusive, however, because R&D incentives are considered in the abstract, without further obligation on the agency to identify structured R&D channels, pipeline products, and research trajectories.

With this, any case for an expansion of the Commission’s power to intervene against mergers in certain R&D-driven industries should rely on sound theoretical and empirical infrastructure. Yet, despite efforts by the most celebrated Nobel-prize economists of the past decades, the economics that underpin the relation between industry concentration and innovation incentives remains an unfathomable mystery. As Geoffrey Manne and Joshua Wright have summarized in detail, the existing literature is indeterminate, at best. As they note, quoting Rich Gilbert,

[a] careful examination of the empirical record concludes that the existing body of theoretical and empirical literature on the relationship between competition and innovation “fails to provide general support for the Schumpeterian hypothesis that monopoly promotes either investment in research and development or the output of innovation” and that “the theoretical and empirical evidence also does not support a strong conclusion that competition is uniformly a stimulus to innovation.”

Available theoretical research also fails to establish a directional relationship between mergers and innovation incentives. True, soundbites from antitrust conferences suggest that the Commission’s Chief Economist Team has developed a deterministic model that could be brought to bear on novel merger policy initiatives. Yet, given the height of the intellectual Everest under discussion, we remain dubious (yet curious).

And, as noted, the available empirical data appear inconclusive. Consider a relatively concentrated industry like the seed and agrochemical sector. Between 2009 and 2016, all big six agrochemical firms increased their total R&D expenditure and their R&D intensity either increased or remained stable. Note that this has taken place in spite of (i) a significant increase in concentration among the largest firms in the industry; (ii) dramatic drop in global agricultural commodity prices (which has adversely affected several agrochemical businesses); and (iii) the presence of strong appropriability devices, namely patent rights.

This brief industry example (that I discuss more thoroughly in the paper) calls our attention to a more general policy point: prior to poking and prodding with novel theories of harm, one would expect an impartial antitrust examiner to undertake empirical groundwork, and screen initial intuitions of adverse effects of mergers on innovation through the lenses of observable industry characteristics.

At a more operational level, SIII also illustrates the difficulties of using indirect proxies of innovation incentives such as R&D figures and patent statistics as a preliminary screening tool for the assessment of the effects of the merger. In my paper, I show how R&D intensity can increase or decrease for a variety of reasons that do not necessarily correlate with an increase or decrease in the intensity of innovation. Similarly, I discuss why patent counts and patent citations are very crude indicators of innovation incentives. Over-reliance on patent counts and citations can paint a misleading picture of the parties’ strength as innovators in terms of market impact: not all patents are translated into products that are commercialised or are equal in terms of commercial value.

As a result (and unlike the SIII or innovation markets approaches), the use of these proxies as a measure of innovative strength should be limited to instances where the patent clearly has an actual or potential commercial application in those markets that are being assessed. Such an approach would ensure that patents with little or no impact on innovation competition in a market are excluded from consideration. Moreover, and on pain of stating the obvious, patents are temporal rights. Incentives to innovate may be stronger as a protected technological application approaches patent expiry. Patent counts and citations, however, do not discount the maturity of patents and, in particular, do not say much about whether the patent is far from or close to its expiry date.

In order to overcome the limitations of crude quantitative proxies, it is in my view imperative to complement an empirical analysis with industry-specific qualitative research. Central to the assessment of the qualitative dimension of innovation competition is an understanding of the key drivers of innovation in the investigated industry. In the agrochemical industry, industry structure and market competition may only be one amongst many other factors that promote innovation. Economic models built upon Arrow’s replacement effect theory – namely that a pre-invention monopoly acts as a strong disincentive to further innovation – fail to capture that successful agrochemical products create new technology frontiers.

Thus, for example, progress in crop protection products – and, in particular, in pest- and insect-resistant crops – had fuelled research investments in pollinator protection technology. Moreover, the impact of wider industry and regulatory developments on incentives to innovate and market structure should not be ignored (for example, falling crop commodity prices or regulatory restrictions on the use of certain products). Last, antitrust agencies are well placed to understand that beyond R&D and patent statistics, there is also a degree of qualitative competition in the innovation strategies that are pursued by agrochemical players.

My paper closes with a word of caution. No compelling case has been advanced to support a departure from established merger control practice with the introduction of SIII in pharmaceutical and agrochemical mergers. The current EU merger control framework, which enables the Commission to conduct a prospective analysis of the parties’ R&D incentives in current or future product markets, seems to provide an appropriate safeguard against anticompetitive transactions.

In his 1974 Nobel Prize Lecture, Hayek criticized the “scientific error” of much economic research, which assumes that intangible, correlational laws govern observable and measurable phenomena. Hayek warned that economics is like biology: both fields focus on “structures of essential complexity” which are recalcitrant to stylized modeling. Interestingly, competition was one of the examples expressly mentioned by Hayek in his lecture:

[T]he social sciences, like much of biology but unlike most fields of the physical sciences, have to deal with structures of essential complexity, i.e. with structures whose characteristic properties can be exhibited only by models made up of relatively large numbers of variables. Competition, for instance, is a process which will produce certain results only if it proceeds among a fairly large number of acting persons.

What remains from this lecture is a vibrant call for humility in policy making, at a time where some constituencies within antitrust agencies show signs of interest in revisiting the relationship between concentration and innovation. And if Hayek’s convoluted writing style is not the most accessible of all, the title captures it all: “The Pretense of Knowledge.

So I’ve just finished writing a book (hence my long hiatus from Truth on the Market).  Now that the draft is out of my hands and with the publisher (Cambridge University Press), I figured it’s a good time to rejoin my colleagues here at TOTM.  To get back into the swing of things, I’m planning to produce a series of posts describing my new book, which may be of interest to a number of TOTM readers.  I’ll get things started today with a brief overview of the project.

The book is titled How to Regulate: A Guide for Policy Makers.  A topic of that enormity could obviously fill many volumes.  I sought to address the matter in a single, non-technical book because I think law schools often do a poor job teaching their students, many of whom are future regulators, the substance of sound regulation.  Law schools regularly teach administrative law, the procedures that must be followed to ensure that rules have the force of law.  Rarely, however, do law schools teach students how to craft the substance of a policy to address a new perceived problem (e.g., What tools are available? What are the pros and cons of each?).

Economists study that matter, of course.  But economists are often naïve about the difficulty of transforming their textbook models into concrete rules that can be easily administered by business planners and adjudicators.  Many economists also pay little attention to the high information requirements of the policies they propose (i.e., the Hayekian knowledge problem) and the susceptibility of those policies to political manipulation by well-organized interest groups (i.e., public choice concerns).

How to Regulate endeavors to provide both economic training to lawyers and law students and a sense of the “limits of law” to the economists and other policy wonks who tend to be involved in crafting regulations.  Below the fold, I’ll give a brief overview of the book.  In later posts, I’ll describe some of the book’s specific chapters. Continue Reading…

On October 6, the Heritage Foundation released a legal memorandum (authored by me) that recounts the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) recent sad history of ignoring the rule of law in its enforcement and regulatory actions.  The memorandum calls for a legislative reform agenda to rectify this problem by reining in the agency.  Key points culled from the memorandum are highlighted below (footnotes omitted).

1.  Background: The Rule of Law

The American concept of the rule of law is embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and in the constitutional principles of separation of powers, an independent judiciary, a government under law, and equality of all before the law.  As the late Friedrich Hayek explained:

[The rule of law] means the government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand—rules which make it possible to see with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one’s individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge.

In other words, the rule of law involves a system of binding rules that have been adopted and applied by a valid government authority and that embody clarity, predictability, and equal applicability.   Practices employed by government agencies that undermine the rule of law ignore a fundamental duty that the government owes its citizens and thereby weaken America’s constitutional system.  It follows, therefore, that close scrutiny of federal administrative agencies’ activities is particularly important in helping to achieve public accountability for an agency’s failure to honor the rule of law standard.

2.  How the FCC Flouts the Rule of Law

Applying such scrutiny to the FCC reveals that it does a poor job in adhering to rule of law principles, both in its procedural practices and in various substantive actions that it has taken.

Opaque procedures that generate uncertainties regarding agency plans undermine the clarity and predictability of agency actions and thereby undermine the effectiveness of rule of law safeguards.  Process-based reforms designed to deal with these problems, to the extent that they succeed, strengthen the rule of law.  Procedural inadequacies at the FCC include inordinate delays and a lack of transparency, including the failure to promptly release the text of proposed and final rules.  The FCC itself has admitted that procedural improvements are needed, and legislative proposals have been advanced to make the Commission more transparent, efficient, and accountable.

Nevertheless, mere procedural reforms would not address the far more serious problem of FCC substantive actions that flout the rule of law.  Examples abound:

  • The FCC imposes a variety of “public interest” conditions on proposed mergers subject to its jurisdiction. Those conditions often are announced after inordinate delays, and typically have no bearing on the mergers’ actual effects.  The unpredictable nature and timing of such impositions generate a lack of certainty for businesses and thereby undermine the rule of law.
  • The FCC’s 2015 Municipal Broadband Order preempted state laws in Tennessee and North Carolina that prevented municipally owned broadband providers from providing broadband service beyond their geographic boundaries. Apart from its substantive inadequacies, this Order went beyond the FCC’s statutory authority and raised grave federalism problems (by interfering with a state’s sovereign right to oversee its municipalities), thereby ignoring the constitutional limitations placed on the exercise of governmental powers that lie at the heart of the rule of law.  The Order was struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in August 2016.
  • The FCC’s 2015 “net neutrality” rule (the Open Internet Order) subjects internet service providers (ISPs) to sweeping “reasonableness-based” FCC regulatory oversight. This “reasonableness” standard gives the FCC virtually unbounded discretion to impose sanctions on ISPs.  It does not provide, in advance, a knowable, predictable rule consistent with due process and rule of law norms.  In the dynamic and fast-changing “Internet ecosystem,” this lack of predictable guidance is a major drag on innovation.  Regrettably, in June 2014, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, by a two-to-one vote, rejected a challenge to the order brought by ISPs and their trade association.
  • The FCC’s abrupt 2014 extension of its long-standing rules restricting common ownership of local television broadcast stations, to encompass Joint Sales Agreements (JSAs) likewise undermined the rule of law. JSAs, which allow one television station to sell advertising (but not programming) on another station, have long been used by stations that had no reason to believe that their actions in any way constituted illegal “ownership interests,” especially since many of them were originally approved by the FCC.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit wisely vacated the television JSA rule in May 2016, stressing that the FCC had violated a statutory command by failing to carry out in a timely fashion the quadrennial review of the television ownership rules on which the JSA rule was based.
  • The FCC’s February 2016 proposed rules that are designed to “open” the market for video set-top boxes, appear to fly in the face of federal laws and treaty language protecting intellectual property rights, by arbitrarily denying protection to intellectual property based solely on a particular mode of information transmission. Such a denial is repugnant to rule of law principles.
  • FCC enforcement practices also show a lack of respect for rule of law principles, by seeking to obtain sanctions against behavior that has never been deemed contrary to law or regulatory edicts. Two examples illustrate this point.
    • In 2014, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau proposed imposing a $10 million fine on TerraCom, Inc., and YourTelAmerica, Inc., two small telephone companies, for a data breach that exposed certain personally identifiable information to unauthorized access. In so doing, the FCC cited provisions of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and accompanying regulations that had never been construed to authorize sanctions for failure to adopt “reasonable data security practices” to protect sensitive consumer information.
    • In November 2015, the FCC similarly imposed a $595,000 fine on Cox Communications for failure to prevent a data breach committed by a third-party hacker, although no statutory or regulatory language supported imposing any penalty on a firm that was itself victimized by a hack attack

3.  Legislative Reforms to Rein in the FCC

What is to be done?  One sure way to limit an agency’s ability to flout the rule of law is to restrict the scope of its legal authority.  As a matter of first principles, Congress should therefore examine the FCC’s activities with an eye to eliminating its jurisdiction over areas in which regulation is no longer needed:  For example, residual price regulation may be unnecessary in all markets where competition is effective. Regulation is called for only in the presence of serious market failure, coupled with strong evidence that government intervention will yield a better economic outcome than will a decision not to regulate.

Congress should craft legislation designed to sharply restrict the FCC’s ability to flout the rule of law.  At a minimum, no matter how it decides to pursue broad FCC reform, the following five proposals merit special congressional attention as a means of advancing rule of law principles:

  • Eliminate the FCC’s jurisdiction over all mergers. The federal antitrust agencies are best equipped to handle merger analysis, and this source of costly delay and uncertainty regarding ad hoc restrictive conditions should be eliminated.
  • Eliminate the FCC’s jurisdiction over broadband Internet service. Given the benefits associated with an open and unregulated Internet, Congress should provide clearly and unequivocally that the FCC has no jurisdiction, direct or indirect, in this area.
  • Shift FCC regulatory authority over broadband-related consumer protection (including, for example, deceptive advertising, privacy, and data protection) and competition to the Federal Trade Commission, which has longstanding experience and expertise in the area. This jurisdictional transfer would promote clarity and reduce uncertainty, thereby strengthening the rule of law.
  • Require that before taking regulatory action, the FCC carefully scrutinize regulatory language to seek to avoid the sorts of rule of law problems that have plagued prior commission rulemakings.
  • Require that the FCC not seek fines in an enforcement action unless the alleged infraction involves a violation of the precise language of a regulation or statutory provision.

4.  Conclusion

In recent years, the FCC too often has acted in a manner that undermines the rule of law. Internal agency reforms might be somewhat helpful in rectifying this situation, but they inevitably would be limited in scope and inherently malleable as FCC personnel changes. Accordingly, Congress should weigh major statutory reforms to rein in the FCC—reforms that will advance the rule of law and promote American economic well-being.

In a September 20 speech at the high profile Georgetown Global Antitrust Enforcement Symposium, Acting Assistant Attorney General Renata Hesse sent the wrong signals to the business community and to foreign enforcers (see here) regarding U.S. antitrust policy.  Admittedly, a substantial part of her speech was a summary of existing U.S. antitrust doctrine.  In certain other key respects, however, Ms. Hesse’s remarks could be read as a rejection of the mainstream American understanding (and the accepted approach endorsed by the International Competition Network) that promoting economic efficiency and consumer welfare are the antitrust lodestar, and that non-economic considerations should not be part of antitrust analysis.  Because foreign lawyers, practitioners, and enforcement officials were present, Ms. Hesse’s statement not only could be cited against U.S. interests in foreign venues, it could undermine longstanding efforts to advance international convergence toward economically sound antitrust rules.

Let’s examine some specifics.

Ms. Hesse’s speech begins with a paean to “economic fairness” – a theme that runs counter to the theme that leading federal antitrust enforcers have consistently stressed for decades, namely, that antitrust seeks to advance the economic goal of consumer welfare (and efficiency).  Consider this passage (emphasis added):

[E]nforcers [should be] focused on the ultimate goal of antitrust, economic fairness. . . .    The conservative leaning “Chicago School” made economic efficiency synonymous with the goals of antitrust in the 1970s, which incorporated theoretical economics into mainstream antitrust scholarship and practice.  Later, more centrist or left-leaning post-Chicago and Harvard School scholars showed that sophisticated empirical and theoretical economics tools can be used to support more aggressive enforcement agendas.  Together, these developments resulted in many technical discussions about what impact a business practice will have on consumer welfare mathematically measured – involving supply and demand curves, triangles representing “dead weight loss,” and so on.   But that sort of conversation is one that resonates very little – if at all – with those engaged in the straightforward, popular dialogue about the dangers of increasing corporate concentration.  The language of economic theory does not sound like the language of economic fairness that is the raw material for most popular discussions about competition and antitrust.      

Unfortunately, Ms. Hesse’s references to the importance of “fairness” recur throughout her remarks, driving home again and again that fairness is a principle that should play a key role in antitrust enforcement.  Yet fairness is an inherently subjective concept (fairness for whom, and measured by what standard?) that was often invoked in notorious and illogical U.S. Supreme Court decisions of days of yore – decisions that were rightly critiqued by leading scholars and largely confined to the dustbin of bad precedents, starting in the mid-1970s.

Equally bad are the speech’s multiple references to “high concentration” and “bigness,” unfortunate terms that also cropped up in economically irrational pre-1970s Supreme Court antitrust opinions.  Scholarship demonstrating that neither high market concentration nor large corporate size is necessarily associated with poor economic performance is generally accepted, and the core teaching that “bigness” is not “badness” is a staple of undergraduate industrial organization classes and introductory antitrust law courses in the United States.  Admittedly the speech also recognizes that bigness and high concentration are not necessarily harmful, but merely by giving lip service to these concepts, it encourages interventionists and foreign enforcers who are seeking additional justifications for antitrust crusades against “big” and “powerful” companies (more on this point later).

Perhaps the most unfortunate passage in the speech is Ms. Hesse’s defense of the Supreme Court’s “Philadelphia National Bank” (1963) (“PNB”) presumption that “a merger which produces a firm controlling an undue percentage share of the relevant market, and results in a significant increase in the concentration of firms in that market is so inherently likely to lessen competition substantially” that the law will presume it unlawful.  The PNB presumption is a discredited historical relic, an antitrust “oldie but baddy” that sound scholarship has shown should be relegated to the antitrust scrap heap.  Professor Joshua Wright and Judge Douglas Ginsburg explained why the presumption should be scrapped in a 2015 Antitrust Law Journal article:

The practical effect of the PNB presumption is to shift the burden of proof from the plaintiff, where it rightfully resides, to the defendant, without requiring evidence – other than market shares – that the proposed merger is likely to harm competition. The problem for today’s courts in applying this semicentenary standard is that the field of industrial organization economics has long since moved beyond the structural presumption upon which the standard is based. That presumption is almost the last vestige of pre-modern economics still embedded in the antitrust law of the United States. Even the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines issued jointly by the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice have abandoned the . . . presumption, though the agencies certainly do not resist the temptation to rely upon the presumption when litigating a case. There is no doubt the . . . presumption of PNB is a convenient litigation tool for the enforcement agencies, but the mission of the enforcement agencies is consumer welfare, not cheap victories in litigation. The presumption ought to go the way of the agencies’ policy decision to drop reliance upon the discredited antitrust theories approved by the courts in such cases as Brown Shoe, Von’s Grocery, and Utah Pie. Otherwise, the agencies will ultimately have to deal with the tension between taking advantage of a favorable presumption in litigation and exerting a reformative influence on the direction of merger law.  

Ms. Hesse ignored this reasoned analysis in commenting on the PNB presumption:

[I]n the wake of the Chicago School’s influence, antitrust commentators started to call into question the validity of this common-sense presumption, believing that economic theory showed that mergers tended to be beneficial or, if they resulted in harm, that harm was fleeting.  Those skeptics demanded more detailed proof of consumer harm in place of the presumption.  More recent economics studies, however, have given new life to the old presumption—in several ways.  First, we are learning more and more that mergers among substantial competitors tend to lead to higher prices. [citation omitted]  Second, economists have been finding that mergers often fail to deliver on the gains their proponents sought to achieve. [citation omitted] Taking these insights together, we should be skeptical of the claim that mergers among substantial competitors are beneficial.  The law – which builds this skepticism into it – provides an excellent tool for protecting competition from large, horizontal mergers.

Ms. Hesse’s discussion of the PNB presumption is problematic on several counts.  First, it cites one 2014 study that purports to find price increases following certain mergers in some oligopolistic industries as supporting the presumption, without acknowledging a key critique of that study – that it ignores efficiencies and potential gains in producer welfare (see here).  Second, it cites one 2001 study suggesting that financial performance may not be enhanced by some mergers while ignoring other studies to the contrary (see, for example, here and here).  Third, and most fundamentally, Ms. Hesse’s statement that “we should be skeptical of the claim that mergers among substantial competitors are beneficial” misses the point of antitrust enforcement entirely, and, in so doing, could be read as discouraging efficiency-seeking acquisitions.  It is not the role of antitrust enforcement to make merging parties prove that their proposed transaction will be beneficial – rather, enforcers must prove that a proposed transaction’s effect “may be substantially to lessen competition”, as stated in section 7 of the Clayton Act.  Requiring “proof” that a merger between competitors “will be beneficial” after the fact, in response to a negative presumption, strongly discourages potential efficiency-seeking consolidations, to the detriment of economic growth and welfare.  That was the case in the 1960s, and it could become so again today, if U.S. antitrust enforcers embark on a concerted campaign of touting the PNB presumption.  Relatedly, an efficient market for corporate control (involving the strong potential of acquisitions to achieve synergies or to correct management problems in badly-run targets) is chilled when a presumption blocks acquisitions absent a “proof” of future benefit, to the detriment of the economy.  Apart from these technical points, the PNB presumption in effect grants a government bureaucracy (exercising “the pretense of knowledge”) the right to condemn voluntary commercial transactions of a particular sort (horizontal mergers) that have not been shown to be harmful.  Such a grant of authority ignores the superior ability of information-seeking market participants to uncover and apply knowledge (as the late Friedrich Hayek might have pointed out) and is fundamentally at odds with the system of voluntary exchange that lies at the heart of a successful market economy.

Another highly problematic statement is Ms. Hesse’s discussion of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) final 2010 Intel settlement:

The Federal Trade Commission’s case against Intel a decade later . . . shows how dominant firms can cut off the normal mechanisms of competition to maintain dominance.  In that case, the FTC alleged that Intel violated Section 5 of the FTC Act by maintaining its monopoly in central processing units (or CPUs) through a variety of payments and penalties (including loyalty or market-share discounts) to computer manufacturers to induce them not to purchase products from Intel’s rivals such as AMD and Via Technologies. [citation omitted]  When a monopolist pays customers to disfavor its rivals and punishes those customers who nevertheless do business with a rival, that does not look like the monopolist is competing with its rivals on the merits of their products.  Because these actions served only to foreclose competition from rival producers of CPUs, these actions distorted the competitive process.

Ms. Hesse ignores the fact that Intel involved a settlement, not a final litigated decision, and thus is lacking in precedential weight.  Firms that believe their conduct was perfectly legal may nevertheless settle an FTC investigation if they deem the costs (including harm to reputation) of continuing to litigate outweigh the costs of the settlement’s terms.  Furthermore, various learned commentators (such as Professor and then-FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright, see here) have pointed out that Intel’s discounts had tangible procompetitive effects and that there was a lack of evidence that Intel’s conduct harmed consumers or competitors (indeed, AMD, Intel’s principal competitor, continued to thrive during the period of Intel’s alleged “bad” behavior).  In short, Ms. Hesse’s conclusion that Intel’s actions “served only to foreclose competition from rival producers of CPUs” lacks credibility.  Moreover, Ms. Hesse’s reference to illegal “monopoly maintenance,” a Sherman Antitrust Act monopolization term of art, fails to note that the FTC stressed that Intel was brought purely under FTC section 5, “which is broader than the antitrust laws”.

Finally, the speech’s concluding section ends on a discordant note.  In summing up what she deemed to be an appropriate, up-to-date approach to antitrust litigation, Ms. Hesse reemphasizes the “fairness” theme, making such statements as “ultimately the plaintiff’s story should highlight the moral underpinnings of the antitrust laws—fighting against the unfairness of concentrated economic power” and “attempts to obtain or keep economic power unfairly”.  While such statements might be rationalized as having been made in the context of promoting a “non-technical” appreciation for antitrust by the general public, the emphasis on fairness as a rhetorical device in lieu of palpable economic harm and consumer welfare is quite troublesome.

On the domestic front, that emphasis may not have a direct impact on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion and on American judicial precedents in the short run (at least one hopes so).  In the longer run, however, it cuts against efforts to constrain populist impulses that would transform antitrust once again into an unguided missile aimed at the heart of the American market system.

On the international front, things are even worse.  A variety of major jurisdictions make explicit reference to “fairness” in their competition law statutes and decisions.  Foreign officials with a strongly interventionist bent might well cite Ms. Hesse’s speech in justifying expansive and economically untethered “fairness-based” competition law prosecutions.  Niceties as to whether their initiatives do not fall within the strict contours of Ms. Hesse’s analysis of the competitive process might be readily ignored, given the inherent elasticity (to say the least) of the “fairness” concept.  What’s more, Ms. Hesse’s remarks seriously undermine arguments advanced by the United States and leading commentators in multilateral fora (such as the ICN and the OECD) that competition law enforcement should focus solely on consumer welfare, with other policies handled under different statutory schemes.

In sum, Ms. Hesse’s speech summons up not the comforting ghost of Christmas past, but rather the malevolent goblin of antitrust past (whether she meant to do so or not).  Although her remarks concededly contain many well-reasoned and uncontroversial comments about antitrust analysis, her totally unnecessary application of a gaudy, un-economic populist gloss to the antitrust enterprise is what stares the reader in the face.  One can hope that, as an experienced and accomplished antitrust practitioner and public servant, Ms. Hesse will come to realize this and respond by unequivocally disavowing and stripping away the rhetorical gloss in a future major address.  Whether she chooses to do so or not, however, antitrust agency leadership in the next Administration should loudly and repeatedly make it clear that populist notions and “fairness” have no role in modern competition law analysis, whose lodestar should be consumer welfare and efficiency.

The American concept of “the rule of law” (see here) is embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and in the constitutional principles of separation of powers, an independent judiciary, a government under law, and equality of all before the law (see here).  It holds that the executive must comply with the law because ours is “a government of laws, and not of men,” or, as Justice Anthony Kennedy put it in a 2006 address to the American Bar Association, “that the Law is superior to, and thus binds, the government and all its officials.”  (See here.)  More specifically, and consistent with these broader formulations, the late and great legal philosopher Friedrich Hayek wrote that the rule of law “means the government in all its actions is bound by rules fixed and announced beforehand – rules which make it possible to see with fair certainty how the authority will use its coercive powers in given circumstances and to plan one’s individual affairs on the basis of this knowledge.”  (See here.)  In other words, as former Boston University Law School Dean Ron Cass put it, the rule of law involves “a system of binding rules” adopted and applied by a valid government authority that embody “clarity, predictability, and equal applicability.”  (See here.)

Regrettably, by engaging in regulatory overreach and ignoring statutory limitations on the scope of their authority, federal administrative agencies have shown scant appreciation for rule of law restraints under the current administration (see here and here for commentaries on this problem by Heritage Foundation scholars).  Although many agencies could be singled out, the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) actions in recent years have been especially egregious (see here).

A prime example of regulatory overreach by the FCC that flouted the rule of law was its promulgation in 2015 of an order preempting state laws in Tennessee and North Carolina that prevented municipally-owned broadband providers from providing broadband service beyond their geographic boundaries (Municipal Broadband Order, see here).   As a matter of substance, this decision ignored powerful economic evidence that municipally-provided broadband services often involve wasteful subsidies for financially–troubled government-owned providers that interfere with effective private sector competition and are economically harmful (my analysis is here).   As a legal matter, the Municipal Broadband Order went beyond the FCC’s statutory authority and raises grave constitutional problems, thereby ignoring the constitutional limitations placed on the exercise of governmental powers that lie at the heart of the rule of law (see here).  The Order lacked a sound legal footing in basing its authority on Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which merely authorizes the FCC to promote local broadband competition and investment (a goal which the Order did not advance) and says nothing about preemption.   In addition, the FCC’s invocation of preemption authority trenched upon the power of the states to control their subordinate governmental entities, guaranteed to them by the Constitution as an essential element of their sovereignty in our federal system (see here).   What’s more, the Chattanooga, Tennessee and Wilson, North Carolina municipal broadband systems that had requested FCC preemption imposed content-based restrictions on users of their network that raised serious First Amendment issues (see here).   Specifically, those systems’ bans on the transmittal of various sorts of “abusive” language appeared to be too broad to withstand First Amendment “strict scrutiny.”  Moreover, by requiring prospective broadband enrollees to agree not to sue their provider as an initial condition of service, two of the municipal systems arguably unconstitutionally coerced users to forgo exercise of their First Amendment rights.

Fortunately, on August 10, 2016, in Tennessee v. FCC, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit struck down the Municipal Broadband Order, pithily stating:

The FCC order essentially serves to re-allocate decision-making power between the states and their municipalities. This is shown by the fact that no federal statute or FCC regulation requires the municipalities to expand or otherwise to act in contravention of the preempted state statutory provisions. This preemption by the FCC of the allocation of power between a state and its subdivisions requires at least a clear statement in the authorizing federal legislation. The FCC relies upon § 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 for the authority to preempt in this case, but that statute falls far short of such a clear statement. The preemption order must accordingly be reversed.

The Sixth Circuit’s decision has important policy ramifications that extend beyond the immediate controversy, as Free State Foundation Scholars Randolph May and Seth Cooper explain:

The FCC’s Municipal Broadband Preemption Order would have turned constitutional federalism inside out by severing local political subdivisions’ accountability from the states governments that created them. Had the agency’s order been upheld, the FCC surely would have preempted several other state laws restricting municipalities’ ownership and operation of broadband networks. Several state governments would have been locked into an unwise policy of favoring municipal broadband business ventures with a track record of legal and proprietary conflicts of interest, expensive financial failures, and burdensome debts for local taxpayers.

The avoidance of a series of bad side effects in a corner of the regulatory world is not, however, sufficient grounds for breaking out the champagne.  From a global perspective, the Sixth Circuit’s Tennessee v. FCC decision, while helpful, does not address the broader problem of agency disregard for the limitations of constitutional federalism and the rule of law.  Administrative overreach, like a chronic debilitating virus, saps the initiative of the private sector (and, more generally, the body politic) and undermines its vitality.  In addition, not all federal judges can be counted on to rein in legally unjustified rules (which in any event impose costly delay and uncertainty, even if they are eventually overturned).  What is needed is an administration that emphasizes by word and deed that it is committed to constitutionalist rule of law principles – and insists that its appointees (including commissioners of independent agencies) share that philosophy.  Let us hope that we do not have to wait too long for such an administration.

On April 15, President Obama issued Executive Order 13725, “Steps to Increase Competition and Better Inform Consumers and Workers to Support Continued Growth of the American Economy” (“the Order”).  At first blush, the Order appears quite promising.  It commendably (1) praises competitive markets as a cornerstone of the American economy, and (2) sets the promotion of competitive markets as “a shared priority across the Federal Government.”  The Order then directs executive branch departments and agencies (“agencies”) with “authorities that could be used to enhance competition” to “eliminate regulations that restrict competition without corresponding benefits to the American public.”  Furthermore, agencies are to identify ways they “can promote competition through pro-competitive rulemaking and regulations” and  “by eliminating regulations that restrict competition without corresponding benefits to the American public.”  What’s more, within sixty days agencies shall report to the White House:

“[R]ecommendations on agency-specific actions that eliminate barriers to competition, promote greater competition, and improve consumer access to information needed to make informed purchasing decisions.  Such recommendations shall include a list of priority actions, including rulemakings, as well as timelines for completing those actions. . . .  Subsequently, agencies shall report semi-annually to the President . . . on additional actions that they plan to undertake to promote greater competition.”

Finally, the Order praises the value of federal antitrust enforcement, and directs agencies to cooperate with the two federal antitrust enforcers, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice.

While a presidential nod to the importance of competition and the benefits of procompetitive regulatory reform is always welcome, I fear that the Order is little more than cheap symbolism and is not intended to have real effect.  (I hope, of course, that I am wrong about this.)  Similarly, technology policy writer and fellow Truth on the Market blogger Kristian Stout has opined that “there is nothing in the Order . . . to provide any confidence that competition will, in fact, be promoted.”  This pessimism, unfortunately, is warranted.  It stems from the Obama Administration’s sad history of pursuing policies that are antithetical to procompetitive regulatory reform.

In an April 19 commentary on the Order, Susan Dudley, Director of George Washington University’s Regulatory Studies Center, pointed out that the Council of Economic Advisers Issues Brief accompanying the Order (“Brief”) made no reference to the bipartisan deregulatory successes of the 1970s and 1980s, which featured the elimination of certain agencies and the “removal of unnecessary regulation in several previously-regulated industries, with resulting improvements in innovation and consumer welfare.”  Moreover, as Dudley further explained, the Obama Administration’s longstanding anticompetitive and pro-regulatory policies fly in the face of the procompetitive regulatory reform goals that inform the Order and the Brief:

Recent years have seen a resurgence of economic regulation, which may be contributing to the decline in competition and innovation that the issue brief decries.  Regulations under the Affordable Care Act and Dodd-Frank Act, for example, limit prices, control entry, and constrain service quality.  The flurry of standards mandating the energy-efficiency of appliances and fuel-economy of vehicles restricts consumer choices.  And, many would argue that Federal Communications Commission’s net neutrality rules and the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rules—two areas that . . . [the Brief] highlight[s] as illustrating the “pro-competition progress” on which the executive order will build—are indeed anticompetitive, limiting the arrangements that could emerge from competitive markets, and potentially harming innovation.

The ever-increasing size and scope of the economic harm imposed by the Obama Administration’s regulatory programs, alluded to by Dudley, has been documented in “Red Tape Rising,” an annual report produced by Heritage Foundation scholars James L. Gattuso and Diane Katz.  The 2015 Red Tape Rising report (the 2016 version will be released later this spring) reported these sobering findings (footnotes omitted):

The number and cost of government regulations continued to climb in 2014, intensifying Washington’s control over the economy and Americans’ lives.  The addition of 27 new major rules last year pushed the tally for the Obama Administration’s first six years to 184, with scores of other rules in the pipeline.  The cost of just these 184 rules is estimated by regulators to be nearly $80 billion annually, although the actual cost of this massive expansion of the administrative state is obscured by the large number of rules for which costs have not been fully quantified.  Absent substantial reform, economic growth and individual freedom will continue to suffer. . . .  Many more regulations are on the way, with another 126 economically significant rules on the Administration’s agenda, such as directives to farmers for growing and harvesting fruits and vegetables; strict limits on credit access for service members; and, yet another redesign of light bulbs.

To combat this regulatory morass, the 2015 Red Tape Rising study made these recommendations:

Immediate reforms should include requiring legislation to undergo an analysis of regulatory impacts before a floor vote in Congress, and requiring every major regulation to obtain congressional approval before taking effect. Sunset deadlines should be set in law for all major rules, and independent agencies should be subject—as are executive branch agencies—to the White House regulatory review process.

If the Obama Administration is truly serious about procompetitive regulatory reform, and wants to confound the skeptics, it should endorse the Red Tape Rising recommendations as follow-on steps taken in light of the Order.  Also, the Administration should take additional specific helpful actions, including, for example:  (1) requiring that the agency regulatory reform recommendations called for by the Order be evaluated by the Office of Management and Budget’s expert regulatory review arm, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA); (2) publicly committing to rooting out of anticompetitive and non-cost-beneficial regulations, on the basis of OIRA reviews of agency recommendations; and (2) preparing a discrete legislative package of targeted statutory reforms to diminish the burden of federal regulation, which could be taken up by the next Administration.  Simultaneously, the White House could recant its prior public support for over-regulatory initiatives taken by specific agencies, such as its endorsement of anti-innovation Federal Communications Commission “net neutrality” (see a scholarly critique here) and set-top box (see my critical commentary here) rules.  By acting in this manner, the Obama Administration would demonstrate its commitment to the spirit of the Order, and, thus, to the promotion of a more vibrant and efficient American economy.

In order to move in the direction I recommend, the Administration would have to reject the notion that market competition can somehow be micromanaged and improved upon by enactment of enlightened “pro-competitive” regulatory guidance.  This notion, which was articulated by Oscar Lange among many others (see, for example, Lange’s “On the Economic Theory of Socialism,” here and here), presumes in the extreme that government bureaucrats are able to set optimal economy-wide rules and prices that generate economic efficiency.  Friedrich Hayek effectively refuted this notion as a matter of theory (see, for example, Hayek’s “The Use of Knowledge in Society”), and nearly a century of failed socialist experiments have refuted it as a matter of empirical fact.  What’s more, even “limited” issue-specific government regulation has too often reduced economic welfare and efficiency, as predicted by public choice theory (see, for example, here).  Perhaps some wise senior official will take these teachings to heart and convince the Obama White House to apply them henceforth – but I am not holding my breath.

I am sharing the press release below:

George Mason University receives $30 million in gifts, renames School of Law after Justice Antonin Scalia

Largest combined gift in university’s history will support new scholarship programs

Arlington, VA— George Mason University today announces pledges totaling $30 million to the George Mason University Foundation to support the School of Law.  The gifts, combined, are the largest in university history. The gifts will help establish three new scholarship programs that will potentially benefit hundreds of students seeking to study law at Mason.

In recognition of this historic gift, the Board of Visitors has approved the renaming of the school to The Antonin Scalia School of Law at George Mason University.

“This is a milestone moment for the university,” said George Mason University President Ángel Cabrera. “These gifts will create opportunities to attract and retain the best and brightest students, deliver on our mission of inclusive excellence, and continue our goal to make Mason one of the preeminent law schools in the country.”

Mason has grown rapidly over the last four decades to become the largest public research university in Virginia. The School of Law was established in 1979 and has been continually ranked among the top 50 law programs in the nation by U.S. News and World Report.

Justice Scalia, who served 30 years on the U.S. Supreme Court, spoke at the dedication of the law school building in 1999 and was a guest lecturer at the university.  He was a resident of nearby McLean, Virginia.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, his esteemed colleague on the Supreme Court for more than two decades, said Scalia’s opinions challenged her thinking and that naming the law school after him was a fine tribute.

“Justice Scalia was a law teacher, public servant, legal commentator, and jurist nonpareil. As a colleague who held him in highest esteem and great affection, I miss his bright company and the stimulus he provided, his opinions ever challenging me to meet his best efforts with my own. It is a tribute altogether fitting that George Mason University’s law school will bear his name. May the funds for scholarships, faculty growth, and curricular development aid the Antonin Scalia School of Law to achieve the excellence characteristic of Justice Scalia, grand master in life and law,” added Ginsburg.

“Justice Scalia’s name evokes the very strengths of our school: civil liberties, law and economics, and constitutional law,” said Law School Dean Henry N. Butler. “His career embodies our law school’s motto of learn, challenge, lead. As a professor and jurist, he challenged those around him to be rigorous, intellectually honest, and consistent in their arguments.”

The combined gift will allow the university to establish three new scholarship programs to be awarded exclusively and independently by the university:

Antonin Scalia Scholarship Awarded to students with excellent academic credentials.

A. Linwood Holton, Jr. Leadership Scholarship – Named in honor of the former governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, this scholarship will be awarded to students who have overcome barriers to academic success, demonstrated outstanding leadership qualities, or have helped others overcome discrimination in any facet of life.

F.A. Hayek Law, Legislation, and Liberty Scholarship – Named in honor of the 1974 Nobel Prize winner in economics, this scholarship will be awarded to students who have a demonstrated interest in studying the application of economic principles to the law.

“The growth of George Mason University’s law school, both in size and influence, is a tribute to the hard work of its leaders and faculty members,” said Governor Terry McAuliffe. “I am particularly pleased that new scholarship awards for students who face steep barriers in their academic pursuits will be named in honor of former Virginia Governor Linwood Holton, an enduring and appropriate legacy for a man who championed access to education for all Virginians.”

The scholarships will help Mason continue to be one of the most diverse universities in America.

“When we speak about diversity, that includes diversity of thought and exposing ourselves to a range of ideas and points of view,” said Cabrera. “Justice Scalia was an advocate of vigorous debate and enjoyed thoughtful conversations with those he disagreed with, as shown by his longtime friendship with Justice Ginsburg. That ability to listen and engage with others, despite having contrasting opinions or perspectives, is what higher education is all about.”

The gift includes $20 million that came to George Mason through a donor who approached Leonard A. Leo of the Federalist Society, a personal friend of the late Justice Scalia and his family.  The anonymous donor asked that the university name the law school in honor of the Justice. “The Scalia family is pleased to see George Mason name its law school after the Justice, helping to memorialize his commitment to a legal education that is grounded in academic freedom and a recognition of the practice of law as an honorable and intellectually rigorous craft,” said Leo. 

The gift also includes a $10 million grant from the Charles Koch Foundation, which supports hundreds of colleges and universities across the country that pursue scholarship related to societal well-being and free societies.

“We’re excited to support President Cabrera and Dean Butler’s vision for the Law School as they welcome new students and continue to distinguish Mason as a world-class research university,” said Charles Koch Foundation President Brian Hooks.

The name change is pending approval from the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia.

A formal dedication ceremony will occur in the fall.

About George Mason

George Mason University is Virginia’s largest public research university. Located near Washington, D.C., Mason enrolls more than 33,000 students from 130 countries and all 50 states. Mason has grown rapidly over the past half-century and is recognized for its innovation and entrepreneurship, remarkable diversity, and commitment to accessibility.

About the Mason School of Law

The George Mason University School of Law is defined by three words: Learn. Challenge. Lead. The goal is to have students who will receive an outstanding legal education (Learn), be taught to critically evaluate prevailing orthodoxy and pursue new ideas (Challenge), and, ultimately, be well prepared to distinguish themselves in their chosen fields (Lead).

About Faster Farther—The Campaign for George Mason University

Faster Farther is about securing Mason’s place as the intellectual cornerstone of our region and a global leader in higher education. We have a goal to raise $500 million through 2018.