Menu Expand

Taming Giants: How Ordoliberal Competition Theory Can Address Power in the Digital Age

  1. Journals
  2. Economics, Finance, Business & Management
  3. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch
  4. Vol. 141, Issue 3
  5. pp. 149–188

JOURNAL ARTICLE

Cite JOURNAL ARTICLE

Style
Küsters, A., Oakes, I. Taming Giants: How Ordoliberal Competition Theory Can Address Power in the Digital Age. Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, 141(3), 149-188. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.141.3.149
Küsters, Anselm and Oakes, Isabel "Taming Giants: How Ordoliberal Competition Theory Can Address Power in the Digital Age" Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch 141.3, 2021, 149-188. https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.141.3.149
Küsters, Anselm/Oakes, Isabel (2021): Taming Giants: How Ordoliberal Competition Theory Can Address Power in the Digital Age, in: Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, vol. 141, iss. 3, 149-188, [online] https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.141.3.149
Format
Download

Taming Giants: How Ordoliberal Competition Theory Can Address Power in the Digital Age

Küsters, Anselm | Oakes, Isabel

Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch, Vol. 141 (2021), Iss. 3 : pp. 149–188

1 Citations (CrossRef)

Read Now Download (PDF)

Additional Information

Article Details

Publisher Name
Duncker & Humblot
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3790/schm.141.3.149
Language
English
Pages
40
Keywords

Author Details

Anselm Küsters, Max Planck Institute for Legal History and Legal Theory, Hansaallee 41, 60323 Frankfurt, Germany.

Isabel Oakes, Faculty of History, George Street, Oxford, OX1 2RL, United Kingdom.

Cited By

  1. Ordoliberalism goes China? A comparison of recent developments in EU and chinese competition law considering the digital economy

    Küsters, Anselm

    (2023)

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10602-023-09407-y [Citations: 0]

References

  1. Abelshauser, W. 1996. “Erhard oder Bismarck? Die Richtungsentscheidung der deutschen Sozialpolitik am Beispiel der Reform der Sozialversicherung in den Fünfziger Jahren.” Geschichte und Gesellschaft: Zeitschrift für Historische Sozialwissenschaft 22 (3): 376 – 92.  Google Scholar
  2. Abelshauser, W. 2009. Des Kaisers neue Kleider? Wandlungen der Sozialen Marktwirtschaft. Munich: RomanHerzogInstitut.  Google Scholar
  3. ACCC. 2019. “Digital Platforms Inquiry: final report.” Accessed August 15, 2022. https://www.accc.gov.au/system/files/Digital%20platforms%20inquiry%20-%20final%20report.pdf.  Google Scholar
  4. Aghion, P., N. Bloom, R. Blundell, R. Griffith, and P. Howitt. 2005. “Competition and Innovation: An Inverted-U Relationship.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 120 (2): 701 – 28.  Google Scholar
  5. Ahn, S. 2002. Competition, Innovation and Productivity Growth: A Review of Theory and Evidence. Economics Department Working Papers No. 317. Paris, OECD Publishing.  Google Scholar
  6. Akman, P. 2009. “Searching for the Long-Lost Soul of Article 82 EC.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 29 (2): 267 – 303.  Google Scholar
  7. Andreessen, M. 2011. “Why software is eating the world.” Wall Street Journal, August 20, 2011. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111903480904576512250915629460.  Google Scholar
  8. Autorité de la concurrence/Bundeskartellamt. 2016. “Competition Law and Data.” Accessed April 16, 2021. https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Publikation/DE/Berichte/Big%20Data%20Papier.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2.  Google Scholar
  9. Autorité de la concurrence/Bundeskartellamt. 2019. “Algorithms and Competition.” Accessed April 16, 2021. https://www.bundeskartellamt.de/SharedDocs/Publikation/EN/Berichte/Algorithms_and_Competition_Working-Paper.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=5.  Google Scholar
  10. Bak-Coleman, J. B., M. Alfano, W. Barfuss, C. T. Bergstrom, M. A. Centeno, I. D. Couzin, J. F. Donges, M. Galesic, A. S. Gersick, etc. 2021. “Stewardship of global collective behavior.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118 (27): 1 – 10.  Google Scholar
  11. Baker, J. B. 2017. “Market power in the U.S. economy today.” Accessed October 4, 2021. https://equitablegrowth.org/market-power-in-the-u-s-economy-today/.  Google Scholar
  12. Baker, J. B. and S. C. Salop. 2015. “Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Inequality.” Accessed August 15, 2022. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2474&context=facpub.  Google Scholar
  13. Banko, M. and E. Brill. 2001. “Scaling to Very Very Large Corpora For Natural Language Disambiguation.” Accessed August 15, 2022. https://aclanthology.org/P01-1005.pdf.  Google Scholar
  14. Bartels, C. 2019. “Top Incomes in Germany, 1871 – 2014.” Journal of Economic History 79 (3): 669 – 707.  Google Scholar
  15. Baumol, W. J. and J. A. Ordover. 1985. “Use of Antitrust to Subvert Competition.” Journal of Law & Economics 28 (2): 247 – 65.  Google Scholar
  16. Beater, A. 1995. Nachahmen im Wettbewerb: Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung zu § 1 UWG. Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).  Google Scholar
  17. Bernhardt, L. and R. Dewenter. 2020. “Collusion by code or algorithmic collusion? When pricing algorithms take over.” European Competition Journal 16 (2 – 3): 312 – 42.  Google Scholar
  18. Bertilorenzi, M. 2016. “Legitimising Cartels: The joint roles of the League of Nations and of the International Chamber of Commerce.” In Regulating Competition: Cartel registers in the twentieth-century world, edited by S. Fellman and M. Shanahan, 30 – 47. Abingdon: Routledge.  Google Scholar
  19. Biebricher, T. 2021. Die politische Theorie des Neoliberalismus. Berlin: Suhrkamp.  Google Scholar
  20. Biebricher, T. and F. Vogelmann, eds. 2017. The Birth of Austerity: German Ordoliberalism and Contemporary Neoliberalism. London: Rowman & Littlefield.  Google Scholar
  21. Böhm, F. (1933) 2010. Wettbewerb und Monopolkampf: Eine Untersuchung zur Frage des wirtschaftlichen Kampfrechts und zur Frage der rechtlichen Struktur der geltenden Wirtschaftsordnung. Baden-Baden: Nomos.  Google Scholar
  22. Böhm, F. 1937. Die Ordnung der Wirtschaft als geschichtliche Aufgabe und rechtsschöpferische Leistung. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.  Google Scholar
  23. Bond, R., C. J. Fariss, J. J. Jones, A. D. I. Kramer, C. Marlow, J. E. Settle, and J. H. Fowler. 2012. “A 61-million-person experiment in social influence and political mobilization.” Nature 489 (7415): 295 – 98.  Google Scholar
  24. Bonefeld, W. 2012. “Freedom and the Strong State: On German Ordoliberalism.” New Political Economy 17 (5): 633 – 56.  Google Scholar
  25. Bonefeld, W. 2013. “Human economy and social policy: On ordo-liberalism and political authority.” History of Human Sciences 26 (2): 106 – 25.  Google Scholar
  26. Bork, R. H. 1978. The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself. New York: Basic Books.  Google Scholar
  27. Brekke, K. R., L. Siciliani, and O. R. Straume. 2010. “Price and quality in spatial competition.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 40 (6): 471 – 80.  Google Scholar
  28. Broemel, R. and H.-H. Trute. 2016. “Alles nur Datenschutz?” Berliner Debatte Initial 27 (4): 50 – 65.  Google Scholar
  29. Bullock, B. B., F. L. Nascimento, and S. A. Doore. 2021. “Computing Ethics Narratives: Teaching Computing Ethics and the Impact of Predictive Algorithms.” Proceedings of the 52nd ACM Technical Symposium on Computer Science Education (SIGCSE ‘21): 1020 – 26.  Google Scholar
  30. Chafkin, M. 2021. The Contrarian: Peter Thiel and Silicon Valley’s Pursuit of Power. New York: Penguin Press.  Google Scholar
  31. Chiritã, A. D. 2014. “A Legal-Historical Review of the EU Competition Rules.” International & Comparative Law Quarterly 63 (2): 281 – 316.  Google Scholar
  32. Commun, P. and S. Kolev, eds. 2018. Wilhelm Röpke (1899 – 1966): A Liberal Political Economist and Conservative Social Philosopher. Cham: Springer.  Google Scholar
  33. Connor, J. M. 2008. Global Price Fixing. Berlin: Springer Verlag.  Google Scholar
  34. Corporate Europe Observatory and LobbyControl. 2021. “The Lobby Network: Bit Tech’s Web of Influence in the EU.” Accessed October 4, 2021. https://corporateeurope.org/en/2021/08/lobby-network-big-techs-web-influence-eu.  Google Scholar
  35. Crane, D. A. 2016. “Antitrust and Wealth Inequality.” Cornell Law Review 101 (5): 1171 – 228.  Google Scholar
  36. Crane, D. A. 2018. “Antitrust and Democracy: A Case Study from German Fascism.” Accessed January 26, 2022. https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1266&context=law_econ_current.  Google Scholar
  37. Crane, D. A. 2020. “Fascism and Monopoly.” Michigan Law Review 118 (7): 1315 – 70.  Google Scholar
  38. Crary, J. 2014. 24/7: Late Capitalism and the Ends of Sleep. London: Verso.  Google Scholar
  39. Crémer, J., Y.-A. de Montjoye, and H. Schweitzer. 2019. Competition policy for the digital era. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.  Google Scholar
  40. De Loecker, J., J. Eeckhout, and G. Unger. 2020. “The Rise of Market Power and the Macroeconomic Implications.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 135 (2): 561 – 644.  Google Scholar
  41. Dekker, E. 2019. “Is There an Agenda of Neoliberal Emancipation?” Journal of Contextual Economics–Schmollers Jahrbuch 139 (2 – 4): 213 – 23.  Google Scholar
  42. Diemer, A. 2019. “The Colloque Walter Lippmann: How to Rebuild the Foundations of Liberalism?” Journal of Contextual Economics–Schmollers Jahrbuch 139 (2 – 4): 225 – 41.  Google Scholar
  43. Dietzfelbinger, D. 1998. Soziale Marktwirtschaft als Wirtschaftsstil: Alfred Müller-Armacks Lebenswerk. Gütersloh: Christian Kaiser.  Google Scholar
  44. Díez, F. J., D. Leigh, and S. Tambunlertchai. 2018. Global Market Power and its Macroeconomic Implications. IMF Working Paper No. 2018 (137).  Google Scholar
  45. Dold, M. F. and T. Krieger. 2019. “The ‘New’ Crisis of the Liberal Order: Populism, Socioeconomic Imbalances, and the Response of Contemporary Ordoliberalism.” Journal of Contextual Economics–Schmollers Jahrbuch 139 (2 – 4): 243 – 58.  Google Scholar
  46. Dold, M. F. and T. Krieger. 2021. “The ideological use and abuse of Freiburg’s ordoliberalism.” Public Choice. Accessed April 16, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-021-00875-0.  Google Scholar
  47. Douglas, E. 2020. “Monopolization Remedies and Data Privacy.” Virginia Journal of Law and Technology 24 (2): 1 – 88.  Google Scholar
  48. Eichengreen, B. J. 2015. Hall of Mirrors: The Great Depression, the Great Recession, and the Uses – and Misuses – of History. New York: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  49. Epstein, R. 2014. “How Google could end democracy.” U.S. News & World Report, June 9, 2014. https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2014/06/09/how-googles-search-rankings-could-manipulate-elections-and-end-democracy.  Google Scholar
  50. Eucken, W. 1932. “Staatliche Strukturwandlungen und die Krisis des Kapitalismus.” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 36 (2): 297 – 321.  Google Scholar
  51. Eucken, W. 1938. Nationalökonomie – Wozu? Leipzig: Felix Meiner Verlag.  Google Scholar
  52. Eucken, W. (1940) 1989. Grundlagen der Nationalökonomie. Berlin: Springer Verlag.  Google Scholar
  53. Eucken, W. 1949. “Die Wettbewerbsordnung und ihre Verwirklichung.” ORDO – Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 2: 1 – 99.  Google Scholar
  54. Eucken, W. (1952) 1955. Grundsätze der Wirtschaftspolitik. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).  Google Scholar
  55. Ezrachi, A. 2018. “EU Competition Law Goals and the Digital Economy.” Accessed April 16, 2021. https://www.beuc.eu/publications/beuc-x-2018-071_goals_of_eu_competition_law_and_digital_economy.pdf.  Google Scholar
  56. Ezrachi, A. and M. E. Stucke. 2016. Virtual Competition: The Promise and Perils of the Algorithm-Driven Economy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.  Google Scholar
  57. Falch, M. 2021. “Surveillance capitalism – a new techno-economic paradigm?” Accessed August 22, 2022. https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/238019/1/Falch.pdf.  Google Scholar
  58. Fockenbrock, D., D. Heide, A. Höpner, and T. Hoppe. 2019. “Siemens und Alstom: Zug-Fusion wird zum Testfall für Europa.” Handelsblatt, January 11, 2019. https://www.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/wettbewerb-mit-china-siemens-und-alstom-zug-fusion-wird-zum-testfall-fuer-europa/23849458.html?ticket=ST-8134970-ZBzdeKIj3EoFvPdaS1sR-ap6.  Google Scholar
  59. Fowler, G. A. 2021. “How Big Tech monopoly made smart speakers dumber.” Washington Post, September 29, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/29/smart-home-monopoly/.  Google Scholar
  60. Fox, E. M. 2009. “The Efficiency Paradox: How the Chicago School Overshot the Mark: The Effect of Conservative Economic Analysis on U.S. Antitrust.” NYU Law and Economics Research Paper 09 (26): 77 – 101.  Google Scholar
  61. Furman, J., D. Coyle, A. Fletcher, D. McAuley, and P. Marsden. 2019. Unlocking Digital Competition: Report of the Digital Competition Expert Panel. London: HM Treasury.  Google Scholar
  62. Furman, J. and P. Orszag. 2015 “A Firm-Level Perspective on the Role of Rents in the Rise of Inequality.” In Toward a Just Society: Joseph Stiglitz and Twenty-First Century Economics, edited by M. Guzman, 19 – 47. New York: Columbia University Press.  Google Scholar
  63. Galofré-Vilà, G., C. M. Meissner, M. McKee, and D. Stuckler. 2021. “Austerity and the Rise of the Nazi Party.” Journal of Economic History 81 (1): 81 – 113.  Google Scholar
  64. Gane, N. 2012. Max Weber and Contemporary Capitalism. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.  Google Scholar
  65. Gerber, D. J. 1994. “Constitutionalizing the Economy: German Neo-liberalism, Competition Law and the ‘New’ Europe.” American Journal of Comparative Law 42 (1): 25 – 84.  Google Scholar
  66. Gerber, D. J. 1998. Law and Competition in Twentieth Century Europe: Protecting Prometheus. New York: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  67. Gerbrandy, A. 2019. “Rethinking Competition Law within the European Economic Constitution.” Journal of Common Market Studies 57 (1): 127 – 42.  Google Scholar
  68. Geroski, P. A. 2003. “Competition in Markets and Competition for Markets.” Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade 3 (3): 151 – 66.  Google Scholar
  69. Glick M. and C. Ruetschlin. 2019. Big Tech Acquisitions and the Potential Competition Doctrine: The Case of Facebook. Institute for New Economic Thinking Working Paper No. 104.  Google Scholar
  70. Goldschmidt, N., E. Grimmer-Solem, and J. Zweynert. 2016. “On the Purpose and Aims of the Journal of Contextual Economics.” Schmollers Jahrbuch–Journal of Contextual Economics 136 (1): 1 – 14.  Google Scholar
  71. Gómez León, M. and H. J. de Jong. 2019. “Inequality in turbulent times: income distribution in Germany and Britain, 1900 – 50.” Economic History Review 72 (3): 1073 – 98.  Google Scholar
  72. Graef, I. 2015. “Market Definition and Market Power in Data: The Case of Online Platforms.” World Competition: Law and Economics Review 38 (4): 473 – 505.  Google Scholar
  73. Graef, I. 2016. “Data as Essential Facility: Competition and Innovation on Online Platforms.” Doctor of Laws diss., KU Leuven.  Google Scholar
  74. Gregg, S. 2010. Wilhelm Röpke’s Political Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.  Google Scholar
  75. Grossekettler, H. 1989. “On designing an economic order. The contributions of the Freiburg School.” In Perspectives on the History of Economic Thought, Vol. 2, edited by D. Walker, 38 – 84. Aldershot: Edward Elgar.  Google Scholar
  76. Grunes, A. P. and M. E. Stucke. 2015. No Mistake about It: The Important Role of Antitrust in the Era of Big Data. University of Tennessee Legal Studies Research Paper No. 269.  Google Scholar
  77. Gutiérrez, G. and T. Philippon. 2017. Declining Competition and Investment in the U.S. NBER Working Paper 23583. National Bureau of Economic Research.  Google Scholar
  78. Gutiérrez, G. and T. Philippon. 2018. How EU markets became more competitive than US markets: a study of institutional drift. NBER Working Paper 24700. National Bureau of Economic Research.  Google Scholar
  79. Halevy, A., P. Norvig, and F. Pereira. 2009. “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Data.” IEEE Intelligent Systems 24 (2): 8 – 12.  Google Scholar
  80. Harrington, J. E. 2018. “Developing Competition Law for Collusion By Autonomous Artificial Agents.” Journal of Competition Law and Economics 14 (3): 331 – 63.  Google Scholar
  81. Haskel, J. and S. Westlake. 2018. Capitalism without Capital. Princeton: Princeton University Press.  Google Scholar
  82. Hederer, F. and K. C. Priemel. 2021. “In der Schwebe. Markt, Staat und Wettbewerb in Deutschland zwischen 1918 und 1948.” Historische Zeitschrift 313 (1): 89 – 123.  Google Scholar
  83. Heller, N. 2020. “Is Venture Capital Worth the Risk?” Accessed April 16, 2021. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/01/27/is-venture-capital-worth-the-risk.  Google Scholar
  84. Hellwig, M. 2006. “Effizienz oder Wettbewerbsfreiheit? Zur normativen Grundlegung der Wettbewerbspolitik.” In Recht und spontane Ordnung. Festschrift für Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker zum achtzigsten Geburtstag, edited by C. Engel and W. Möschel, 231 – 68. Baden-Baden: Nomos.  Google Scholar
  85. Heuß, E. 1989. “‘Die Grundlagen der Nationalökonomie’ vor 50 Jahren und heute.” ORDO–Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 40: 21 – 30.  Google Scholar
  86. Hoffmann, J. and G. O. Johannsen. 2019. EU-Merger Control in Big Data-Related Mergers. Max Planck Institute for Innovation & Competition Research Paper 19 (05). Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition.  Google Scholar
  87. Hoffmann, S.-L. 2020. “Reinhart Koselleck’s theory of history for a world in crisis.” Accessed April 16, 2021. https://aeon.co/essays/reinhart-kosellecks-theory-of-history-for-a-world-in-crisis.  Google Scholar
  88. Hong, Y.-S. 1998. Welfare, Modernity, and the Weimar State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.  Google Scholar
  89. Hoppmann, E. 1967. “Wettbewerb als Norm der Wettbewerbspolitik.” ORDO–Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 18: 77 – 94.  Google Scholar
  90. Horn, K., S. Kolev, D. M. Levy, and S. J. Peart, eds. 2019. “Liberalism in the 21st Century: Lessons from the Colloque Walter Lippmann.” Journal of Contextual Economics–Schmollers Jahrbuch 139 (2): 177 – 88.  Google Scholar
  91. Hornkohl, L. and J. v. Klooster. 2020. “With Exclusive Competence Comes Great Responsibility: How the Commission’s Covid-19 State Aid rules Increase Regional Inequalities within the EU.” Accessed April 16, 2021. https://doi.org/10.17176/20200430-013144-0.  Google Scholar
  92. Horton, T. J. 2011. “The Coming Extinction of Homo Economicus and the Eclipse of the Chicago School of Antitrust: Applying Evolutionary Biology to Structural and Behavioral Antitrust Analyses.” Loyola University Chicago Law Journal 42 (3): 469 – 522.  Google Scholar
  93. House Committee on the Judiciary. 2020. “Proposals to Strengthen the Antitrust Laws and Restore Competition.” Accessed April 16, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jXAdjieTo&feature=youtu.be&t=3887.  Google Scholar
  94. Hsu, S.-L. 2018. “Antitrust and Inequality: The Problem of Super-Firms.” Antitrust Bulletin 63 (1): 104 – 12.  Google Scholar
  95. Hu, H., Y. Wen, T. -S. Chua, and X. Li. 2014. “Toward Scalable Systems for Big Data Analytics: A Technology Tutorial.” IEEE Access 2: 652 – 87.  Google Scholar
  96. Hubbard, S. 2020. Monopolies Suck: 7 Ways Big Corporations Rule Your Life and How to Take Back Control. New York Simon & Schuster.  Google Scholar
  97. Huszár, F., S. I. Ktena, C. O’Brien, L. Belli, A. Schlaikjer, and M. Hardt. 2022. “Algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter.” Accessed January 6, 2022. https://www.pnas.org/content/119/1/e2025334119.  Google Scholar
  98. Ibáñez Colomo, P. 2021. “Product Design and Business Models in EU Antitrust Law.” Accessed October 4, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3925396.  Google Scholar
  99. Jensen-Eriksen, N. 2020. “Creating clubs and giants: How competition policies influenced the strategy and structure of Nordic pulp and paper industry, 1970 – 2000.” Business History 62 (5): 763 – 81.  Google Scholar
  100. Joerges, C. 1972. “Die Klassische Konzeption des Internationalen Privatrechts und das Recht des Unlauteren Wettbewerbs.” Rabel Journal of Comparative and International Private Law 36 (3): 421 – 91.  Google Scholar
  101. Joliet, R. 1967. The Rule of Reason in Antitrust Law: American, German and Common Market Laws in Comparative Perspective. Dordrecht: Springer.  Google Scholar
  102. Jovovic, T. 2012. “Deutschland und die Kartelle – eine unendliche Geschichte.” Economic History Yearbook 53 (1): 237 – 73.  Google Scholar
  103. Junge, O. J. 2018a. Imperium: die Rechtsnatur der Europäischen Union im Vergleich mit imperialen Ordnungen vom Römischen bis zum Britischen Reich. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.  Google Scholar
  104. Junge, O. J. 2018b. “Vielfalt und Einheit von Recht und Verfassung in der Europäischen Union und imperialen Ordnungen.” Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart. Neue Folge 66: 43 – 84.  Google Scholar
  105. Jürgens, U. 1980. Selbstregulierung des Kapitals: Erfahrungen aus der Kartellbewegung in Deutschland um die Jahrhundertwende. Zum Verhältnis von Politik und Ökonomie. Frankfurt a. M.: Campus Forschung.  Google Scholar
  106. Kaiser, W. and J. Schot. 2014. Writing the Rules for Europe: Experts, Cartels, and International Organizations. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.  Google Scholar
  107. Kamepalli, S. K., R. Rajan, and L. Zingales. 2020. Kill Zone. NBER Working Paper No. 27146. National Bureau of Economic Research.  Google Scholar
  108. Katz, A. 2020. “The Chicago School and the Forgotten Political Dimension of Antitrust Law.” University of Chicago Law Review 87 (2): 413 – 58.  Google Scholar
  109. Kerber, W. and U. Schwalbe. 2008. “Economic Principles of Competition Law.” In Competition Law: European Community Practice and Procedure, edited by G. Hirsch, F. Montag, and F. J. Säcker, 202 – 393. London: Sweet & Maxwell.  Google Scholar
  110. Kerber, W. 2015. “Einleitung.” In Münchener Kommentar Europäisches und Deutsches Wettbewerbsrecht, edited by J. Bornkamm, F. Montag, and F. J. Sa¨cker, 1 – 12. Munich: C. H. Beck.  Google Scholar
  111. Khan, L. M. 2017. “Amazon’s Antitrust Paradox.” Yale Law Journal 126 (3): 564 – 907.  Google Scholar
  112. Klement, J. H. 2015. Wettbewerbsfreiheit: Bausteine einer europäischen Grundrechtstheorie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.  Google Scholar
  113. Kolev, S. 2018. The Abandoned Übervater: Max Weber and the Neoliberals. Center for the History of Political Economy Working Paper Series No. 2018 – 21, Duke University.  Google Scholar
  114. Kolev, S. 2019a. “James Buchanan and the ‘New Economics of Order’ Research Program.” In James M. Buchanan: A Theorist of Political Economy and Social Philosophy, edited by R. E. Wagner, 85 – 108. London: Palgrave Macmillan.  Google Scholar
  115. Kolev, S. 2019b. “Ordoliberalism’s Embeddedness in the Neoliberalisms of the 1930 s and 1940 s.” In Ordoliberalism and European Economic Policy: Between Realpolitik and Economic Utopia, edited by M. Dold and T. Krieger, 23 – 38. Abingdon: Routledge.  Google Scholar
  116. Kolev, S. and N. Goldschmidt. 2020. “Kulturpessimismus als Provokation. Wilhelm Röpkes Ringen mit der Moderne.” ZfP Zeitschrift für Politik 67 (2): 214 – 34.  Google Scholar
  117. Körber, T., H. Schweitzer, and D. Zimmer. 2019. “Einleitung.” In Wettbewerbsrecht, Vol. 1, edited by T. Körber, H. Schweitzer, and D. Zimmer, 1 – 88. Munich: C. H. Beck.  Google Scholar
  118. Koselleck, R. 1973. Kritik und Krise: Eine Studie zur Pathogenese der bürgerlichen Welt. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.  Google Scholar
  119. Kraffert, F. 2020. “Should EU competition law move towards a Neo-Brandeis approach?” European Competition Journal 16 (1): 55 – 95.  Google Scholar
  120. Krarup, T. 2019. “German political and economic ideology in the twentieth century and its theological problems: The Lutheran genealogy of ordoliberalism.” European Journal of Cultural and Political Sociology 6 (3): 317 – 42.  Google Scholar
  121. Krüger, D. 1983. Nationalökonomen im wilhelminischen Deutschland. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.  Google Scholar
  122. Kruschinski, S. and J. Haßler. 2017. “Die Instrumentalisierung partizipativer Öffentlichkeit durch die AfD bei der rheinland-pfälzischen Landtagswahl 2016.” MedienJournal 41 (2): 97 – 112.  Google Scholar
  123. Küsters, A. 2019a. “Die Freiburger Schule und der Stadt-Land-Gegensatz.” Journal für Kultur 2: 54 – 9.  Google Scholar
  124. Küsters, A. 2019b. In Search of Ordoliberalism: Evidence from the Annual Reports of the German Council of Economic Experts, 1964 – 2017. Max Planck Institute for European Legal History Research Paper Series No. 2019 – 12.  Google Scholar
  125. Küsters, A. 2020a. Warum eine gute Geschichte nicht immer gut sein muss: Zur wirtschaftspolitischen Wirkmächtigkeit von Narrativen aus verhaltensökonomischer Perspektive. DNGPS Working Paper A-02 – 2020 A: 1 – 17. Accessed Apr. 16, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3224/dngps.v6i1.02.  Google Scholar
  126. Küsters, A. 2020b. “Wasser oder Öl? Big Data in der europäischen Fusionskontrolle.” Berliner Debatte Initial 31 (3): 110 – 23.  Google Scholar
  127. Küsters, A. 2022. “Applying Lessons from the Past? Exploring Historical Analogies in ECB Speeches through Text Mining, 1997 – 2019.” International Journal of Central Banking 18 (1): 277 – 329.  Google Scholar
  128. Küsters, H. J. 1982. Die Gründung der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft. Baden-Baden: Nomos.  Google Scholar
  129. Kutzner, M. 2019. Marktwirtschaft schreiben. Das Wirtschaftsressort der Frankfurter Allgemeinen Zeitung 1949 bis 1992. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.  Google Scholar
  130. Lao, M. 2009. “Networks, Access, and ‘Essential Facilities’: From Terminal Railroad to Microsoft.” SMU Law Review. 62 (2): 557 – 96.  Google Scholar
  131. Leisering, L. 2001. “Germany – Reform from Within.” In International Social Policy: Welfare Regimes in the Developed World, edited by P. Alcock und G. Craig, 161 – 82. Basingstoke: Palgrave.  Google Scholar
  132. Lenaerts, K. and J. A. Gutiérrez-Fon. 2013. To Say What the Law of the EU Is: Methods of Interpretation and the European Court of Justice. EUI Working Paper AEL 2013/9. Academy of European Law. European University Institute.  Google Scholar
  133. Leucht, B. 2009. “Transatlantic Policy Networks in the Creation of the First European Anti-Trust Law: Mediating between American Anti-Trust and German Ordo-Liberalism.” In The History of the European Union: Origins of a Trans-and Supranational Polity 1950 – 72, edited by W. Kaiser, B. Leucht, and M. Rasmussen, 56 – 73. Abingdon: Routledge.  Google Scholar
  134. Lösch, D. 2000. “Das Dilemma mit der Rolle des Staates in der Wettbewerbsordnung. Zum 50. Todestag von Walter Eucken” Wirtschaftsdienst 80 (3): 185 – 92.  Google Scholar
  135. Lynn, B. C. 2020. Liberty from All Masters: The New American Autocracy vs. the Will of the People. New York: St. Martin’s Press.  Google Scholar
  136. Macrae, T. 2020. “Economic Nationalism and Merger Control: Impact of COVID-19.” Competition Policy International, May 19, 2020. https://www.competitionpolicyinternational.com/economic-nationalism-and-merger-control-impact-of-covid-19/.  Google Scholar
  137. Maher, I. 1999. “Competition Law Modernization: An Evolutionary Tale?” In The Evolution of EU Law, edited by P. Craig and G. De Búrca, 717 – 41. New York: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  138. Maier, N. 2019. “Closeness of Substitution for ‘Big Data’ in Merger Control.” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 10 (4): 246 – 52.  Google Scholar
  139. McCarraher, E. 2019. The Enchantments of Mammon: How Capitalism Became the Religion of Modernity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.  Google Scholar
  140. McGill, V. J. 1945. “Cartels and the Settlement with Germany.” Science & Society 9 (1): 23 – 54.  Google Scholar
  141. McGowan, L. and E. J. Morgan. 2012. “Today’s Softness is Tomorrow’s Nightmare’: Intensifying the Fight against Cartels in Brussels and Bonn.” Journal of European Integration 34 (6): 603 – 22.  Google Scholar
  142. Medema, S. G. 2010. “Chicago law and economics.” In The Elgar Companion to the Chicago School of Economics, edited by R. B. Emmett, 160 – 74. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.  Google Scholar
  143. Mee, S. 2019. Central Bank Independence and the Legacy of the German Past. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  144. Mehra, S. K. 2016. “Antitrust and the Robo-Seller: Competition in the Time of Algorithms.” Minnesota Law Review 100 (4): 1323 – 75.  Google Scholar
  145. Meier-Rust, K. 1993. Alexander Rüstow: Geschichtsdeutung und liberales Engagement. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta.  Google Scholar
  146. Menke, C. 2015. Kritik der Rechte. Berlin: Suhrkamp.  Google Scholar
  147. Mestmäcker, E-J. 1965. “Offene Märkte im System unverfälschten Wettbewerbs in der Europäischen Wirtschaftsgemeinschaft.” In Wirtschaftsordnung und Rechtsordnung – Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Franz Böhm am 16. Februar 1965, edited by H. Coing, H. Kronstein, and E.-J. Mestmäcker, 345 – 91. Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller.  Google Scholar
  148. Mestmäcker, E-J. 2000. “The EC Commission’s Modernization of Competition Policy: A Challenge to the Community’s Constitutional order.” European Business Organization Law Review 1 (3): 401 – 44.  Google Scholar
  149. Milanovic, B. 2016. Global Inequality: A New Approach for the Age of Globalization. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.  Google Scholar
  150. Monti, G. 2002. “Article 81 EC and Public Policy.” Common Market Law Review 39 (5): 1057 – 99.  Google Scholar
  151. Möschel W. 1989. “Competition Policy from an Ordo Point of View.” In German Neo-Liberals and the Social Market Economy, edited by A. Peacock and H. Willgerodt, 142 – 59. London: Palgrave Macmillan.  Google Scholar
  152. Möschel, W. 1995. “Law and Market Organization: The Historical Experience in Germany From 1900 to the Law Against Restraints of Competition (1957): Comment.” Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE) / Zeitschrift Für Die Gesamte Staatswissenschaft 151: 21 – 5.  Google Scholar
  153. Möschel, W. 2006. “Wettbewerb zwischen Handlungsfreiheit und Effizienzzielen.” In Recht und spontane Ordnung. Festschrift für Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker zum 80. Geburtstag, edited by W. Möschel and C. Engel, 355 – 70. Baden-Baden: Nomos.  Google Scholar
  154. Murach-Brand, L. 2004. Antitrust auf deutsch. Der Einfluß der amerikanischen Alliierten auf das Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (GWB) nach 1945. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.  Google Scholar
  155. Nazzini, R. 2015. “Google and the (Ever-stretching) Boundaries of Article 102.” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 6 (5): 301 – 11.  Google Scholar
  156. Nicholas, T. 2019. V.C.: An American History. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.  Google Scholar
  157. Nicholls, A. J. 1994. Freedom with Responsibility – The Social Market Economy in Germany, 1918 – 1963. Oxford: Clarendon Press.  Google Scholar
  158. Nörr, K. W. 1994. Die Leiden des Privatrechts: Kartelle in Deutschland von der Holzstiffkartellentscheidung zum Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.  Google Scholar
  159. Novak, M. 2019. “Climate Change: What Should Liberals Do?” Journal of Contextual Economics–Schmollers Jahrbuch 139 (2 – 4): 325 – 48.  Google Scholar
  160. Oakes, I. 2020. “Max Weber and Ordoliberalism: How Weber’s Kulturkritik Contributed to the Foundation of Ordoliberal Socio-Economic Thought.” Journal of Contextual Economics–Schmollers Jahrbuch. 140 (2):177 – 204.  Google Scholar
  161. Odell, J. 2019. How to Do Nothing: Resisting the Attention Economy. London: Melville House.  Google Scholar
  162. OECD. 2013. “The Role and Measurement of Quality in Competition Analysis.” Accessed April 16, 2021. http://www.oecd.org/competition/Quality-in-competition-analysis-2013.pdf.  Google Scholar
  163. O’Neil, C. 2016. Weapons of Math Destruction: How Big Data Increases Inequality and Threatens Democracy. New York: Crown Publishing Group.  Google Scholar
  164. Orbach, B. 2019. “The Present New Antitrust Era.” William & Mary Law Review 60 (4): 1439 – 63.  Google Scholar
  165. Pagano, U. 2014. “The crisis of intellectual monopoly capitalism.” Cambridge Journal of Economics 38 (6): 1409 – 29.  Google Scholar
  166. Piketty, T. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.  Google Scholar
  167. Piketty, T. and G. Zucman. 2014. “Capital is back: wealth-income ratios in rich countries 1700 – 2010.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 129 (3): 1255 – 310.  Google Scholar
  168. Pistor, K. 2019. The Code of Capital: How the Law Creates Wealth and Inequality. Princeton: Princeton University Press.  Google Scholar
  169. Pitofsky, R. 1979. “The Political Content of Antitrust.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 127 (4): 1051 – 75.  Google Scholar
  170. Pollman, E. and J. M. Barry 2017. “Regulatory Entrepreneurship.” Southern California Law Review 90 (3): 383 – 448.  Google Scholar
  171. Porat, A. and L. J. Strahilevitz, 2014. “Personalizing Default Rules and Disclosure with Big Data.” Michigan Law Review 112 (8): 1417 – 78.  Google Scholar
  172. Posner, R. A. 1979. “The Chicago School of Antitrust Analysis.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 127 (4): 925 – 48.  Google Scholar
  173. Ptak, R. 2004. Vom Ordoliberalismus zur Sozialen Marktwirtschaft: Stationen des Neoliberalismus in Deutschland. Opladen: Leske + Budrich.  Google Scholar
  174. Räthling, S. G. 2021. Die Kartellrechtsregelungen in den Freihandelsabkommen der Europäischen Union: Eine Analyse im Kontext der Internationalisierung des Kartellrechts. Baden-Baden: Nomos.  Google Scholar
  175. Reinhoudt, J. and S. Audier. 2018. The Walter Lippmann Colloquium: The Birth of Neo-Liberalism. London: Palgrave Macmillan.  Google Scholar
  176. Rollings, N. and L. Warlouzet. 2018. “Business history and European integration: How EEC competition policy affected companies’ strategies.” Business History 62 (5): 717 – 42.  Google Scholar
  177. Röpke, W. (1937) 1963. Economics of the Free Society. Translated by P. M. Boarman. Chicago: Henry Regnery.  Google Scholar
  178. Röpke, W. 1942. International Economic Disintegration. London: William Hodge.  Google Scholar
  179. Röpke, W. 1946. The German Question. Translated by E. W. Dickies. London: George Allen.  Google Scholar
  180. Röpke, W. (1948) 1979. Civitas Humana. Bern: Haupt.  Google Scholar
  181. Röpke, W. (1951, 1957) 1987. 2 Essays By Wilhelm Röpke: The Problem of Economic Order, Welfare Freedom and Inflation, edited by J. Overbeek. Lanham: University Press of America.  Google Scholar
  182. Röpke, W. (1958) 1960. A Humane Economy: The Social Framework of the Free Market Chicago: Henry Regnery.  Google Scholar
  183. Runciman, D. 2021. “Competition is for losers.” London Review of Books 43 (18): 3 – 4.  Google Scholar
  184. Russell, S. and P. Norvig, (1995) 2009. Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach. Hoboken: Prentice Hall.  Google Scholar
  185. Rüstow, A. 1942. “Appendix: General Sociological Causes of the Economic Disintegration and Possibilities of Reconstruction.” In International Economic Disintegration, by W. Röpke, 267 – 83. London: William Hodge.  Google Scholar
  186. Saez, E. and G. Zucman, 2016. “Wealth inequality in the United States since 1913: evidence from capitalized income tax data.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 131 (2): 519 – 78.  Google Scholar
  187. Schenk, C. R. 2021. “The Past as Practice or Parable: Anticipating Financial Crisis in the 1960s and 1980s.” In Remembering and Learning from Financial Crises, edited by Y. Cassis and C. R. Schenk, 82 – 104. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  188. Schepp, N.-P. and A. Wambach. 2016. “On Big Data and Its Relevance for Market Power Assessment.” Journal of European Competition Law & Practice 7 (2): 120 – 24.  Google Scholar
  189. Schinkel, M. P. and L. Treuren. 2020. “Green Antitrust: Friendly Fire in the Fight against Climate Change.” In Competition Law, Climate Change & Environmental Sustainability, Concurrences, edited by S. Holmes, D. Middelschulte, and M. Snoep, 69 – 90: New York: Institute of Competition Law.  Google Scholar
  190. Schønberg, S. and K. Frick. 2003. “Finishing, refining, polishing: On the use of travaux préparatoires as an aid to the interpretation of Community legislation.” European Law Review 28 (2): 149 – 71.  Google Scholar
  191. Schröter, H. G. 1994. “Kartellierung und Dekartellierung: 1890 – 1990.” Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte 81 (4): 457 – 93.  Google Scholar
  192. Schwalbe, U. 2018. “Algorithms, Machine Learning, and Collusion.” Journal of Competition Law & Economics 14 (4): 568 – 607.  Google Scholar
  193. Schweitzer, H., T. Fetzer, and M. Peitz, 2016. Digitale Plattformen: Bausteine für einen künftigen Ordnungsrahmen. Discussion Paper 16 – 042. Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung.  Google Scholar
  194. Shapiro, C. 2012. “Competition and Innovation: Did Arrow Hit the Bull’s Eye?” In The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity Revisited, edited by J. Lerner and S. Stern, 361 – 404. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.  Google Scholar
  195. Slobodian, Q. 2018. Globalists: The End of Empire and the Birth of Neoliberalism. Harvard: Harvard University Press.  Google Scholar
  196. Stigler Center for the Study of the Economy and the State. 2019. “Report of the Committee for the Study of Digital Platforms: Markets Structure and Antitrust Subcommittee.” Accessed April 16, 2021. https://www.chicagobooth.edu/-/media/research/stigler/pdfs/digital-platforms--committee-report--stigler-center.pdf.  Google Scholar
  197. Stiglitz, J. E. 2012. The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future. New York: W. W. Norton.  Google Scholar
  198. Stoller, M. 2019. Goliath: The 100-Year War Between Monopoly Power and Democracy. New York: Simon & Schuster.  Google Scholar
  199. Stones, R. R. 2018. “EU Competition Law and the Rule of Law: Justification and Realisation.” Phd diss., The London School of Economics and Political Science.  Google Scholar
  200. Stross, R. 2012. “Meet Your Neigbors, If Only Online.” New York Times, May 12, 2012. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/13/business/on-nextdoorcom-social-networks-for-neighbors.html.  Google Scholar
  201. Stucke, M. E. and A. Ezrachi. 2020. Competition Overdose: How Free Market Mythology Transformed Us from Citizen Kings to Market Servants. New York: Harper Collins.  Google Scholar
  202. Sunstein, C. R. 2013. “Deciding by Default.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 162 (1): 1 – 57.  Google Scholar
  203. Taylor, L. and Ö. Ömer. 2020. Macroeconomic Inequality from Reagan to Trump: Market Power, Wage Repression, Asset Price Inflation, and Industrial Decline. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  Google Scholar
  204. Tepper, J. 2019. The Myth of Capitalism: Monopolies and the Death of Competition. Hoboken: Wiley.  Google Scholar
  205. Teubner, G. 2014. “Transnationale Wirtschaftsverfassung: Franz Böhm und Hugo Sinzheimer jenseits des Nationalstaates.” Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 74: 733 – 61.  Google Scholar
  206. Thiel, P. 2009. “The Education of a Libertarian.” Cato Unbound, April 13, 2009. https://www.cato-unbound.org/2009/04/13/peter-thiel/education-libertarian/.  Google Scholar
  207. Thiel. P. 2014. “Competition Is for Losers.” Wall Street Journal, September 12, 2014. https://www.wsj.com/articles/peter-thiel-competition-is-for-losers-1410535536.  Google Scholar
  208. Thiel, P. and B. Masters. 2015. Zero to One: Notes on Startups, or How to Build the Future. London: Virgin Books.  Google Scholar
  209. Thiele, A. 2019. Die Europäische Zentralbank: Von technokratischer Behörde zu politischem Akteur? Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.  Google Scholar
  210. Tucker, D. 2015. “The Proper Role of Privacy in Merger Review.” CPI Antitrust Policy May (2): 1 – 7.  Google Scholar
  211. Vallindas, G. 2006. “New Directions in EC Competition Policy: The Case of Merger Control.” European Law Journal 12 (5): 636 – 60.  Google Scholar
  212. Vanberg, V. J. 2004. The Freiburg School: Walter Eucken and Ordoliberalism. Discussion Paper 04/11. Freiburg Discussion Papers on Constitutional Economics, Walter Eucken Institut.  Google Scholar
  213. Vatiero, M. 2015. “Dominant Market Position and Ordoliberalism.” International Review of Economics 62 (4): 291 – 306.  Google Scholar
  214. Vestager, M. 2020. “Speech by Executive Vice-President Margrethe Vestager, Munich Security Conference, 26 October 2020” Accessed April 16, 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2019-2024/vestager/announcements/speech-munich-young-leaders-around-world_en.  Google Scholar
  215. Vestager, M. 2021. “A new Europe: Competition, Industrial Policy, Taxation.” Accessed January 6, 2021. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2019-2024/vestager/announcements/speech-evp-m-vestager-fondazione-la-collaborazione-tra-i-popoli-romano-prodi-new-europe-competition_en.  Google Scholar
  216. Vezzoso, S. 2021. “The dawn of pro-competition data regulation for gatekeepers in the EU.” European Competition Journal 17 (2): 391 – 406.  Google Scholar
  217. Volscho, T. W. and N. J. Kelly. 2012. “The Rise of the Super-Rich: Power Resources, Taxes, Financial Markets, and the Dynamics of the Top 1 Percent, 1949 to 2008.” American Sociological Review 77 (5): 679 – 99.  Google Scholar
  218. Wagner, R. E. 2019. “Economic Theory and the Social Question: Some Dialectics Regarding the Work-Dependency Relationship.” Journal of Contextual Economics–Schmollers Jahrbuch 139 (2 – 4): 407 – 20.  Google Scholar
  219. Waldman, S. 2020. “The Coming Era of ‘Civic News.’” Washington Monthly, October 25, 2020. https://washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/november-december-2020/the-coming-era-of-civic-news/.  Google Scholar
  220. Waller, S. W. and J. Morse. 2020. “The Political Face of Antitrust.” Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial, and Commercial Law 15 (1): 75 – 95.  Google Scholar
  221. Wegmann, M. 2008. Der Einfluss des Neoliberalismus auf das Europäische Wettbewerbsrecht 1946 – 1965. Von den Wirtschaftswissenschaften zur Politik. Baden-Baden: Nomos.  Google Scholar
  222. Weippert, G. 1960. “Die wirtschaftstheoretische und wirtschaftspolitische Bedeutung der Kartelldebatte auf der Tagung des Vereins für Socialpolitik im Jahre 1905: Ein Beitrag zum Schmollerbild.” Jahrbuch fu¨r Sozialwissenschaft 11 (2): 125 – 83.  Google Scholar
  223. Wells, W. 2002. Antitrust and the Formation of the Postwar World. New York: Columbia University Press.  Google Scholar
  224. Wilks, S. 2009. “The Impact of the Recession on Competition Policy: Amending the Economic Constitution?” International Journal of the Economics of Business 16 (3): 269 – 88.  Google Scholar
  225. Wörsdörfer, M. and C. Dethlefs. 2016. “Homo oeconomicus oder Homo culturalis? – Aktuelle Herausforderungen für das ordoliberale Menschenbild.” ORDO–Jahrbuch für die Ordnung von Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 63: 135 – 57.  Google Scholar
  226. Wu, T. 2018. The Curse of Bigness: Antitrust in the New Gilded Age. New York: Columbia Global Reports.  Google Scholar
  227. Zhang, A. H. 2021. Chinese Antitrust Exceptionalism: How the Rise of China Challenges Global Regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Google Scholar
  228. Zittrain, J. 2008. The future of the Internet and how to stop it. New Haven: Yale University Press.  Google Scholar
  229. Zittrain, J. 2014. “Facebook could decide an election without anyone ever finding out – the scary future of digital gerrymandering – and how to prevent it.” New Republic. Accessed April 16, 2021. https://newrepublic.com/article/117878/information-fiduciary-solution-facebook-digital-gerrymandering.  Google Scholar
  230. Zuboff, S. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. New York: PublicAffairs.  Google Scholar

Abstract

In comparing the historical circumstances in which ordoliberalism emerged with the socio-economic and political trends of today, this study identifies parallels that can provide useful insights into tackling current challenges in the digital age. On this basis, the study explores whether ordoliberal concepts like “complete competition,” “interdependence of orders,” and Vitalpolitik, and the lessons from the past that they incorporate, can help reform European competition law for the digital economy. Along with a renewed focus on structural remedies, per se rules and a historical interpretation of European competition norms, ordoliberal theory could contribute to a reformed approach to competition policy that can tame the power of today’s digital giants more effectively.

Table of Contents

Section Title Page Action Price
Taming Giants:How Ordoliberal Competition TheoryCan Address Power in the Digital Age* 1
Abstract 1
1. Introduction: Ordoliberalismand its Lessons from the Past 2
2. Economic Power and the Political Order 4
2.1 Economic and Political Powerat the Time of the Early Ordoliberals 4
2.2 Economic and Political Power in the Digital Age 6
3. Consumer Welfare in Broad Perspective 7
3.1 Welfare at the Time of the Early Ordoliberals 7
3.2 Consumer Welfare in the Digital Age 8
3.3 A Broader Conception of Welfare:Vitalpolitik for the Digital Age 11
4. Framing Competition 14
4.1 Views on Competition at the Timeof the Early Ordoliberals 14
4.2 Views on Competition in the Digital Age 15
5. Goal and Tools of a Modern Ordoliberal Competition Law 17
5.1 Criticism 18
5.2 Goals and Measures ofa Modernized Ordoliberal Competition Law Approach 19
5.3 Why These Reforms Should Be Connectedto Ordoliberal Theory 22
6. Conclusion 24
References 26

Contact

Duncker & Humblot GmbH Carl-Heinrich-Becker-Weg 9 12165 Berlin, Deutschland T: +49 30 790006-0

Quick Navigation

2024 Duncker & Humblot GmbH

Powered by CloudPublish

We use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website. Learn more about how we use cookies.