Civil procedure is the infrastructure of democracy, allowing the public to interpret, elaborate, and entrench constitutional-regulatory commitments over time. Rather than sidelining courts entirely, a revival of the democracy-of-opportunity tradition should include a progressive vision of procedure.
“It is not true that the U.S. Constitution has little to say about our economic rights and liberties – let alone our material welfare. Instead, as Fishkin and Forbath argue convincingly, the Constitution has nourished a democracy-of-opportunity tradition that places our equal social rights front-and-center in constitutional practice and politics.”
Joseph Fishkin and Willy Forbath kick off a symposium on their new book, Aziz Rana probes the persistent historical link between domestic equality and US imperial power, and Luke Herrine reflects on price-gouging and the theory of the fair price.
If one spends too much time around mainstream economists, one might be inclined to think the whole idea of a state enforcing norms of fair price is either redundant or perverse. But we know better than that.
The historical high-tides for the domestic experience of democracy-of-opportunity have occurred during periods of territorial and global expansionism. A serious effort to recover this tradition entails engaging with its imperial dimensions.
In the introduction to a symposium on their new book, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution, Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath make the case for reviving interest among progressives in constitutional political economy.
The possibilities and limits of gig worker coordination under existing law, a legal regime where horizontal coordination is embraced as a social good, and the the misidentification of shareholding with investment. Plus, an LPE student group for the restless and hopeful and the hot new issue of SAQ.
Hot dogs are not sandwiches, work meetings are not retreats, and shareholders are not investors. Yet only one of these conceptual mistakes illicitly lends support to the idea that all corporate activity should benefit shareholders.
To conclude our symposium on Root & Branch Reconstruction in Antitrust, this post offers a glimpse into an alternative universe where horizontal coordination among small players is embraced as a social good.
While a properly designed association of contract workers could pass muster under current Sherman Act antitrust jurisprudence, any such association will face serious practical impediments.
Antitrust week at the blog: Sanjukta Paul lays out some of the key affirmative principles for a root & branch reconstruction, Sandeep Vaheesan explains how strong anti-merger policy would encourage corporations to grow by expanding production capacity, and Marshall Steinbaum makes the antitrust case against gig economy labor platforms.
In the fight to regulate the gig economy, unions, workers, and their allies have only fought half the battle: they have tried to defend the definition of employment against technology-enabled erosion. Antitrust prohibitions against vertical restraints, which prevent firms from exercising control in the absence of an employment relationship, offer a complementary. . .
Over the past four decades, a tidal wave of corporate mergers has resulted in industry concentration, higher prices, and reduced productive capacity. The U.S. wireless industry in the 2010s offers a case study of the public benefits of strong anti-merger law.
Given the shortcomings of the prevailing antitrust framework, a growing chorus of voices is calling for a ground-up reconstruction of competition law and policy. But what would that look like? This symposium offers an affirmative vision of the new antitrust.
Why are Americans so unhappy about the economy? What could LPE could gain from paying greater attention to disability? When and where is the amazing Karl Klare being celebrated? The Weekly Roundup has you covered.
- Amna Akbar
- Corinne Blalock
- Angela P. Harris
- Luke Herrine
- Amy Kapczynski
- Sanjukta Paul
- Kate Redburn
- Noah Zatz