Cartel theory
Under antitrust theory is usually understood as the theory of economic cartels . However, since the term cartel does not have to be limited to the field of business, theories about non-business cartels are also conceivable. These already exist in the form of the state cartel theory and the theory of party cartels . There was no scientific theory for the premodern cartels, which existed as regulations for tournaments , duels and courtly competitive games or in the form of international fairness agreements. This has been developing since the 1880s for the scope of the economy, driven by the need to understand and classify the corporate cartels that have emerged in large numbers . In economic cartel theory, one can differentiate between a classical and a modern phase, whereby the enforcement of a general ban on cartels by the Americans in the period after the Second World War marks the turning point between the two.
Classic cartel theory
The classic cartel theory goes back to the year 1883, when the Austro-Hungarian professor of economics Friedrich Kleinwächter condensed a series of case studies to draft a technical theory. The cartel theory, which was based on the distinctive basic term "cartel", remained for decades the result, above all, of Central European, German-speaking economics. That theory was well-disposed towards the corporate cartels and, in this respect, was constructive-institutional or organizational-sociological-economic. It had its origin in the historical school of economics. The classic cartel theory itself went through three stages:
- an early, partially naive one, in which the "historical school" strongly dominated ( Gustav von Schmoller , Karl Bücher , Lujo Brentano ),
- a middle one, which was shaped by the introduction of more economic theory (especially Robert Liefmann ) and
- a late one, which was influenced by the entry into the organized economy of the Third Reich after the Great Depression from 1929 to 1933 (cf. e.g. Heinz Müllensiefen ).
Theory variants abroad
Abroad there were more or less similar theories about economic organization formation. These variants existed until the 1920s (in Italy until after 1945). However, they operated under different basic terms such as “syndicat”, “accaparement”, “sindacati”, “combination” or also “ trust ”. In France, Francis Laur and Paul de Rousiers , in Italy Francesco Vito , in the USA Jeremiah Jenks, and in Great Britain Henry W. Macrosty and David H. MacGregor were authoritative authors.
Modern cartel theory
The modern cartel theory, following on from classical cartel theory, is essentially of American origin ( George J. Stigler in the 1940s). It rejects cartels more or less fundamentally and is therefore hardly interested in the internal organization of the real cartels that are now to be combated (and therefore weakly institutionalized). As a result, modern cartel theory is strongly oriented towards economic theory and economic policy. The organizational sociological parts of the classical cartel theory are not continued in the modern cartel theory.
Differences between the two cartel theories
The modern cartel theory points - much more actively than the classical - to the harmful consequences of a lack of competition, which leads to inflation, misallocation of capital and the slowdown of technical progress in the economy. In this context , it helped to develop the paradigm of a market failure , which must be avoided through a suitable competition policy . On the other hand, the disadvantages of unbridled competition - such as unnecessary transport of bulk goods, unnecessary advertising for mature goods, brand sales strategies - are more likely to be emphasized in classic cartel theory . Both schools of cartel doctrine - the classic and the modern - thus correspond to conflicting, mutually exclusive economic policy concepts, neither of which were able to ideally solve the fundamental problem of business competition.
In terms of terminology, the classic cartel theory has produced cartel terms and typologies that are rich in social science and that are based on real institutional criteria. Modern cartel theory, on the other hand, is essentially normative. Their particular terminology depends on the respective competition law, its version of the ban on cartels and cartel exceptions (in Germany on the law against restraints of competition ).
Cartel system theory, general cartel theory
According to a more recent analysis by H. Leonhardt, the classic cartel theory (after a deconstructive adjustment) can be understood as an interdisciplinary, social science systems theory . Abstracted from the specific circumstances of the respective competition and competition regulation, there is an overarching theory of the cartel social system . Leonhardt defines this using nine basic statements on the objects arena, actors, interactions, structures, functions, equilibrium conditions, driving force, development path and (system) environment : groups of independent, similar actors are on certain arenas (fields of action). Your selfishness leads to competition and conflict . These are perceived as disturbing or threatening and lead to agreements on fairness rules and balancing of interests, etc. a. in joint ventures . The norms, agreements and projects adopted must be enforced and monitored, which gives rise to cross-actor organizations - cartels. The equilibrium condition of the system is the win-win constellation: all members of an association also want to benefit from this. The driving force that leads to the formation of cartels and gradually condenses the associations on a development path to higher organizational forms is rationalization . The latter is only exhausted when an overall arena-wide organization has been created and fully developed, such as a trust company or a world state . In the economy this tendency is permanently prevented by the competition policy of the state. In international relations , there is not such an instance, is so that the world state perspective in force.
literature
- Friedrich Kleinwächer: The cartels. A contribution to the question of the organization of the national economy . Innsbruck 1883.
- Pohle, Ludwig: The cartels of commercial entrepreneurs. A study of the large-scale industrial forms of organization of the present , Leipzig 1898.
- Robert Liefmann: Cartels, Corporations and Trusts . various editions, 1920s.
- Oskar Klug: The essence of the cartel, corporate and trust movement . Jena 1930.
- Arnold Wolfers: The Cartel Problem in the Light of German Cartel Literature . Munich 1931.
- Robert Liefmann: Cartels, Concerns and Trusts . Ontario 2001 [London 1932]
- Heinz Müllensiefen: Freedom and commitment in an orderly economy: antitrust legislation and market organization in the commercial economy . Hamburg 1939.
- George J. Stigler: The extent and bases of monopoly . In: The American economic review , 32 : 1-22 (1942).
- Harald Enke: Cartel theory . Tübingen 1972.
- Wyatt C. Wells: Antitrust and the Formation of the Postwar World . New York 2002.
- Tony A. Freyer: Antitrust and global capitalism 1930-2004 . New York 2006.
- Holm A. Leonhardt: Cartel theory and international relations. Theory-historical studies , Hildesheim 2013.
- Holm A. Leonhardt: The development of the cartel theory + between 1883 and the 1930s. From international diversity to convergence . Hildesheim 2016. Online resource
- Holm A. Leonhardt: The Development of Cartel Theory between 1883 and the 1930s - from International Diversity to Convergence . Hildesheim 2018. Online resource
Individual evidence
- ^ Friedrich Kleinwächer: The cartels. A contribution to the question of the organization of the national economy . Innsbruck 1883
- ↑ A good overview in: Arnold Wolfers: The cartel problem in the light of German cartel literature . Munich 1931
- ^ Holm A. Leonhardt: Cartel theory and international relations. Theory- historical studies , Hildesheim 2013, pp. 340–348
- ↑ Leonhardt: antitrust theory , pp 192-197