Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy
The Schumpeterian perspective represents a new intellectual framework for antitrust reforms that focus less on competition for competition's sake and more on enabling firm dynamic capabilities to power productivity, innovation and global competitiveness. The Schumpeter Project’s mission is to advance dynamic competition policy with boosting firm dynamic capabilities as a central concern for antitrust enforcement. (Read more.)
- Useful bookmarks: ITIF’s Monopoly Myth Series and Schumpeterian Takes on Pending Antitrust Bills.
- Stay posted by signing up for ITIF emails and checking the box for “Regulation and Antitrust” under “Innovation and Competitiveness.”
Featured Publications
No, Reviving the Robinson-Patman Act Will Not Lead to More Competition or a Better Economy
Neo-Brandeisians aim to reinvigorate the Robinson-Patman Act to protect small businesses. But the act doesn’t address any anticompetitive conduct that isn’t already covered by the Sherman Act, and enforcing it will only harm consumers and limit growth. Rather than repeat history’s mistakes, the next Congress should repeal the act once and for all.
Comments to Japan’s Fair Trade Commission Regarding the Smartphone Software Competition Promotion Act
The SSCP’s broad per se prohibitions and limited cybersecurity exemption are likely to chill the very innovative behavior that is key to allowing Japan’s smartphone markets to thrive, and risk targeting a leading firm of one of its closest allies.
The Case for Cracking Down on Large Corporations and Promoting Small Businesses Is Deeply Flawed
A Democratic staff report from the House Small Business Committee claims that small businesses are better for the economy and large firms are harming it. But most of the report’s assertions stem from flawed research, and its policy recommendations would be detrimental.
Corporate Concentration Is Good for Productivity and Wages
Despite claims by anticorporate neo-Brandeisians, corporate concentration appears positively correlated with higher productivity and wages. So, the push to break up large companies is antiworker and anti-middle class.
Why the U.S. Economy Needs More Consolidation, Not Less
Larger firms are generally more productive because of scale economies, but some U.S. industries still have too high a share of small firms. Policymakers should encourage, not discourage, greater consolidation in these industries.
Events
April 10, 2025|Register Now
The DOJ v. Google Saga Continues: What’s at Stake in the Search Remedies Trial?
Please join ITIF for a virtual panel with top experts who will discuss the key issues going to trial, the implications for Google and the future of search, and what the case means for U.S. antitrust law and the broader “big tech” debate.
March 4, 2025
Competition Policy in the Trump Administration: The Future of Conservative Antitrust and the FTC
Watch the webinar event where panlists discussed how antitrust enforcement might change with the new administration, whether the Trump enforcers will carry forward any of the neo-Brandeisian policies, and what the future may have in store for the FTC.
November 13, 2024
Korea’s Digital Market: Domestic Regulation and Global Impacts
Watch now for an expert panel discussion on how South Korea’s regulatory choices will shape its future as a global tech leader, and what the broader implications will be for its strategic positioning in the U.S.-China rivalry.
October 30, 2024
US v. Google (Again): A Post-Trial Analysis of the Ad Tech Case
Watch now for a virtual panel discussion with experts exploring the merits and implications of the DOJ v. Google ad tech case.
October 10, 2024
Is the DMA a Boost or Brake for European Competitiveness?
Watch now for a lively and insightful webinar featuring leading experts from Europe.
Director, Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Read Bio
More From the Center
February 28, 2025|Blogs
The Tech Oligarchy That Isn’t: Big Tech’s Power Is Overstated
Critics on both sides of the aisle view the “private power” of dominant tech firms as unassailable and protected by anticompetitive conduct, but their alleged monopoly power is often overstated.
February 28, 2025|Blogs
UK Antitrust Enforcers Target Google in Inaugural DMCC Investigation
The Competition and Markets Authority’s looming decision to label Google with significant market status is the first step in a process that threatens to degrade the British consumer experience without achieving meaningful benefits to competition.
February 26, 2025|Op-Eds & Contributed Articles
The EU’s Competitiveness Compass: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly?
The European Commission’s Competitiveness Compass rightly identifies Europe’s economic and innovation challenges but proposes misguided solutions.
February 26, 2025|Testimonies & Filings
Comments to the Australian Treasury Regarding Proposal of a New Digital Competition Regime
By deciding not to pursue digital competition regulation, Australia can avoid the problems that are already materializing as a result of ex-ante regimes like the EU’s DMA.
February 24, 2025|Blogs
The Merger Guidelines Memoranda: An Opening Blunder by the Trump Administration
The possibility of a new bipartisan consensus based on the Biden administration’s failed merger policies should concern Senate Republicans.
February 7, 2025|Testimonies & Filings
Comments to New Zealand’s Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment Regarding Review of the Commerce Act of 1986
While ITIF commends the MBIE for analyzing the efficacy of its current regime, substantial changes to New Zealand’s competition laws should be a response to clear market failures that improves consumer welfare, and not merely an attempt to keep up with perceived global or regional trends.
January 31, 2025|Blogs
A Four-Year Failed Experiment: Khan Leaves the FTC
Neo-Brandeisian antitrust will not form the basis of a new bipartisan antitrust consensus.
