从“错误成本”分析中走出错误:反托拉斯权利有哪些错误?

Taking the Error Out of 'Error Cost' Analysis: What's Wrong with Antitrust's Right

肇始于20世纪70年代的"错误成本"分析框架,被芝加哥学派广泛的带入反托拉斯主流分析中,并且该范式在当代被频繁的援用。即聚焦于反竞争的横向固定价格和划分市场垄断协议、企图寡头垄断和垄断的横向合并,而限制甚至放弃对小规模横向合并、价格歧视及排他性行为的反托拉斯干预。然而,现代的反托拉斯保守主义学派主张进一步修改反托拉斯规则是基于对市场和制度的一系列错误假设。错误成本分析框架通过高估成本而低估各种规则的净效益,这些假设系统性地夸大了假阳性的发生概率和严重程度,低估了假阴性的发生概率和严重程度。为了维护一个有力、有效以及有利于的竞争政策,反托拉斯政策必须避免"错误成本"分析框架的错误应用。

The ＂Error cost＂ analysis framework, which began in the 1970s, was widely brought into the mainstream antitrust analysis by the Chicago School, and the paradigm was frequently invoked in the modern era. Thirty-five years after the publication of The Antitrust Paradox, antitrustconservatives in general continue to support Bork＇s program of focusing antitruston anticompetitive horizontal price fixing and market division and horizontalmergers leading to monopoly or duopoly, while circumscribing orabandoning antitrust＇s concern with small horizontal mergers, price discrimination, and exclusionary conduct. However, today＇s antitrustconservatives＇ advocacy of further changes to antitrust rules is based on aseries of erroneous assumptions about markets and institutions. These assumptionssystematically overstate the incidence and significance of falsepositives, understate the incidence and significance of false negatives, and understate the net benefits of various rules by overstating their costs.To protect a robust, effective, and socially beneficial competition policy, antitrust policy must avoid the erroneous application of error costanalysis.