Chicago School antitrust argued monopoly power could not spread via listed abusive practices

Evidence

However, the scope had expanded with alacrity to encompass manifold antitrust law issues, and yet the investigation of the issue of monopoly remained ancillary for the purpose of many of the articles. Despite the broad range of antitrust issues that the Antitrust Project addressed, the leitmotif of most of the articles was that monopoly power could not be extended through a laundry list of “abuses,” such as tying arrangements and resale price maintenance. In fact, this was essentially the explicit purpose of Director and Levi (1956)—an umbrella article that incorporated the major premises of other individual specialized Antitrust Project articles. … If there is a ‘Chicago school’ of antitrust thought, its manifesto is presumably the article by Levi and Director on Trade Regulation” (1963, 55-56). — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1132

Categorization

• DEFINE: This defines the core Chicago School antitrust position — that monopoly can’t be extended through ‘abuses’ like tying and resale price maintenance — the leitmotif that distinguishes it from classical doctrine.
• XREF: Connects to the broader Chicago School literature on vertical restraints and Bork’s later consumer-welfare antitrust synthesis in The Antitrust Paradox. — connects to: Chicago antitrust reformers rejected per se illegality for exclusionary business practices — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 1082; Chicago neoliberals abandoned antitrust hostility to monopoly within a decade — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 1153; Mont Pelerin Society premises on monopoly underpinned the Chicago Antitrust Project — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin: The Making…, 1133 (+5 more)
• SEED: The ‘abuses list’ theory — monopoly can’t be spread by practice lists — is a distinctive foil piece explaining the Chicago critique of per se illegality rules.

Broader Connections

• Chicago neoliberals abandoned antitrust hostility to monopoly within a decade #qualifies (0.85) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1153
• Chicago neoliberals reversed course to treat monopoly as benign and rarely present #qualifies (0.85) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1120
• Mont Pelerin Society premises on monopoly underpinned the Chicago Antitrust Project #expands (0.80) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1133
• Post-1911 antitrust law turned against ordinary practices without requiring monopoly size #contradicts (0.80) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1137
• Chicago and ordoliberal positions on monopoly were initially similar, not opposed #corroborates (0.75) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1078
• Chicago economic theory was to displace fair-conduct rules as the basis for antitrust decisions #expands (0.75) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1147
• The Chicago Antitrust Project seeded figures who later shaped US jurisprudence #expands (0.75) — Philip Mirowski & Dieter Plehwe (eds.), The Road from Mont Pèlerin, 1187