Antitrust law is important not only for its potential in reforming our current economic system, but also analytically, because of law’s irreducible role in structuring economic competition and coordination. Contra any picture of markets operating via quasi-automatic mechanisms, the organization and operations of any market are as much a product of contingent rules as any law of nature.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a crowning achievement of the Civil Rights Movement. Today, however, it has become one of the most powerful forces against desegregation. How did this vertigo-inducing inversion come about? And how might we prevent similar civil rights perversions in the future?
We reach into the vault and highlight some of our favorite posts on the entanglements between criminal law, political economy, and social inequality. Featuring Angela Harris, Noah Zatz, Jocelyn Simonson, Joanna Schwartz, Anthony O’Rourke, Guyora Binder, Rick Su, Zohra Ahmed, Dorothy Roberts, Judah Schept, Andrew Crespo, and Amna Akbar.
How should we understand the relationship between Marxism and antitrust? To what extent do these traditions involve conflicting methods and assumptions? And, despite their differences, can we imagine a constructive give and take, where the two intellectual programs nonetheless align into a useful division of labor?
Recent public initiatives to manufacture insulin highlight both the promise and pitfalls of the new politics of “abundance.” Although states are capable of producing high-quality, affordable medicines, these efforts inevitably face resistance from powerful private interests. Without recognizing this as a central obstacle and building the political will to overcome it, plans to expand public production, in healthcare or elsewhere, are unlikely to succeed.
Powerful health care companies shape the informational environments around their products. As part of this playbook, companies avoid or thwart the generation and dissemination of accurate information on the true value of their products. Consequently, Americans spend too much on health care with dubious or even negative value.
Though heralded as a policy innovation, value-based payment has not succeeded in lowering costs and has instead fueled corporate consolidation, as many physicians are ill-equipped to assume the financial risk that the payment model requires. Embodying the core tenets of neoliberalism, VBP is ultimately a failure of policymakers to equitably and efficiently administer a public health care program.
To build an electric system that meets the needs and opportunities of the 21st century, we need proposals that strengthen public control and improve regulation of Investor-Owned Utilities. Yet on their own, such proposals ignore a fundamental issue: almost all federal, state, municipal, and coop utilities currently operate with the same centralized, top-down planning and system control as Investor Owned Utilities. Unless that changes, public ownership will do little to remove the barriers that now largely block the evolution of decarbonized, resilient, and more equitable electric service.
For the half-million people in the U.S. with kidney failure, survival rests in the hands of two powerful corporations — DaVita and Fresenius — that control over 70% of the outpatient dialysis market. But the history of dialysis isn’t a simple narrative of corporate consolidation; it’s a case study of how public funding can entrench private power in health care.
Private equity firms are acquiring dominant shares of physician practices, creating conflicts between shareholder value and physicians’ professional and ethical duties. While longstanding state laws that prohibit lay ownership of medical practices have been under-enforced and evaded, recent litigation and legislative proposals suggest they could be revitalized to address today’s forms of corporatization.
From the dialysis market to the pharmaceutical industry, health care is seeing growing consolidation and corporatization. Over the next month, this symposium will explore the financialization of various health care industries and begin to sketch the contours of a progressive pushback—how law, policy, and regulatory action can help erect guardrails to protect us from both illness and insolvency.
As the Trump administration moves to roll back clean energy tax credits, the real question isn’t whether renewable energy will survive, but who will own and control the infrastructure that powers America’s future.
In Democracy in Power, Sandeep Vaheesan argues that New Deal rural electrification efforts can serve as a model for public power in today’s energy system. There are, however, important differences between the political economy of rural electrification and that of today’s climate crisis. Understanding these distinctions can help us be clear-eyed about the political hurdles facing modern public power movements.
A collection of our favorite posts about the legal underpinnings of today’s housing crisis, and about what might be done to restore a conception of housing as shelter, not commodity. Featuring Angela Harris, Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor, David Stein, Kathryn Sabbeth, Duncan Kennedy, Karl Klare, Tara Raghuveer, and more!
Calls for public ownership often highlight the downsides of private ownership: how capitalist firms prioritize profit over providing quality services at fair prices. But what, specifically, do we value in its public counterpart? While Sandeep Vaheesan defends public ownership in the power sector primarily on democratic grounds, the left should emphasize its potential to address key obstacles to rapid decarbonization.
