Controlling Unjustified, Anticompetitive State and Local Regulation: Where is Attorney General “Waldo”?

State and local regulations frequently impose unnecessary anticompetitive restrictions on the market. The challenge is to develop the legal and institutional strategies that can constrain regulation more closely to legitimate public interest goals. This article documents the range of anticompetitive...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Antitrust bulletin 2011-12, Vol.56 (4), p.771-821
1. Verfasser: Carstensen, Peter C.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 821
container_issue 4
container_start_page 771
container_title Antitrust bulletin
container_volume 56
creator Carstensen, Peter C.
description State and local regulations frequently impose unnecessary anticompetitive restrictions on the market. The challenge is to develop the legal and institutional strategies that can constrain regulation more closely to legitimate public interest goals. This article documents the range of anticompetitive interventions ranging from statutes through agency regulation and local ordinances. The theory of public choice and special interest influence in the legislative and administrative processes explain these observations. Second, the article argues that state attorneys general ought to be in the forefront of challenging such regulations, but the record reveals that often attorneys general defend such regulations. Third, the article identifies statutory, doctrinal, and institutional innovations that could ensure more focused and consistent evaluation of such anticompetitive regulations. Finally, there is acknowledgment that it may be difficult for attorneys general to become the advocates for competition against unnecessary regulation that the public interest requires.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0003603X1105600404
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_gale_infotracmisc_A288873475</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A288873475</galeid><sage_id>10.1177_0003603X1105600404</sage_id><sourcerecordid>A288873475</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-cd94b2c9f903859e8401e6c4e0f313a130c92b4a3e5e1a8f272286c3df3be6c53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kcFKAzEQQIMoWKs_4Cng1W2TzXZ340VK0SoUBLXU25JmJ2vqNpEkFXrrh-jP9UvcpV7EInMYZnhvGGYQOqekR2mW9QkhLCXshVIySAlJSHKAOpQzEmU85Yeo0wJRSxyjE-8XTUlJmnfQ28ia4Gxda1PhqVmsfNBKQ3mJhyZoaZfvEHTQH4CfggiAhSnxxEpR40eoVrUI2porPHsFB1h7PAzBOgNrPAYDrqG2m8-ZqEu73Xxdn6IjJWoPZz-5i6a3N8-ju2jyML4fDSeRjDkNkSx5Mo8lV5ywfMAhTwiFVCZAFKNMUEYkj-eJYDAAKnIVZ3Gcp5KVis0bbsC66GI3txI1FNooG5yQS-1lMYzzPM9YkrVUtIeqdntbA0o37V98bw_fRAnL5lD7hHgnSGe9d6CKd6eXwq0LSor2a8XfrzVSfyd5UUGxsCtnmlP9Z3wD9LKYhA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Controlling Unjustified, Anticompetitive State and Local Regulation: Where is Attorney General “Waldo”?</title><source>Access via SAGE</source><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><source>EBSCOhost Business Source Complete</source><creator>Carstensen, Peter C.</creator><creatorcontrib>Carstensen, Peter C.</creatorcontrib><description>State and local regulations frequently impose unnecessary anticompetitive restrictions on the market. The challenge is to develop the legal and institutional strategies that can constrain regulation more closely to legitimate public interest goals. This article documents the range of anticompetitive interventions ranging from statutes through agency regulation and local ordinances. The theory of public choice and special interest influence in the legislative and administrative processes explain these observations. Second, the article argues that state attorneys general ought to be in the forefront of challenging such regulations, but the record reveals that often attorneys general defend such regulations. Third, the article identifies statutory, doctrinal, and institutional innovations that could ensure more focused and consistent evaluation of such anticompetitive regulations. Finally, there is acknowledgment that it may be difficult for attorneys general to become the advocates for competition against unnecessary regulation that the public interest requires.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0003-603X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1930-7969</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0003603X1105600404</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Analysis ; Attorneys general ; Influence ; Monopolistic competition ; Political aspects ; Powers and duties ; Public choice theory ; Public interest</subject><ispartof>Antitrust bulletin, 2011-12, Vol.56 (4), p.771-821</ispartof><rights>2011 SAGE Publications</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2011 Sage Publications, Inc.</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0003603X1105600404$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0003603X1105600404$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,21819,27924,27925,43621,43622</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Carstensen, Peter C.</creatorcontrib><title>Controlling Unjustified, Anticompetitive State and Local Regulation: Where is Attorney General “Waldo”?</title><title>Antitrust bulletin</title><description>State and local regulations frequently impose unnecessary anticompetitive restrictions on the market. The challenge is to develop the legal and institutional strategies that can constrain regulation more closely to legitimate public interest goals. This article documents the range of anticompetitive interventions ranging from statutes through agency regulation and local ordinances. The theory of public choice and special interest influence in the legislative and administrative processes explain these observations. Second, the article argues that state attorneys general ought to be in the forefront of challenging such regulations, but the record reveals that often attorneys general defend such regulations. Third, the article identifies statutory, doctrinal, and institutional innovations that could ensure more focused and consistent evaluation of such anticompetitive regulations. Finally, there is acknowledgment that it may be difficult for attorneys general to become the advocates for competition against unnecessary regulation that the public interest requires.</description><subject>Analysis</subject><subject>Attorneys general</subject><subject>Influence</subject><subject>Monopolistic competition</subject><subject>Political aspects</subject><subject>Powers and duties</subject><subject>Public choice theory</subject><subject>Public interest</subject><issn>0003-603X</issn><issn>1930-7969</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp9kcFKAzEQQIMoWKs_4Cng1W2TzXZ340VK0SoUBLXU25JmJ2vqNpEkFXrrh-jP9UvcpV7EInMYZnhvGGYQOqekR2mW9QkhLCXshVIySAlJSHKAOpQzEmU85Yeo0wJRSxyjE-8XTUlJmnfQ28ia4Gxda1PhqVmsfNBKQ3mJhyZoaZfvEHTQH4CfggiAhSnxxEpR40eoVrUI2porPHsFB1h7PAzBOgNrPAYDrqG2m8-ZqEu73Xxdn6IjJWoPZz-5i6a3N8-ju2jyML4fDSeRjDkNkSx5Mo8lV5ywfMAhTwiFVCZAFKNMUEYkj-eJYDAAKnIVZ3Gcp5KVis0bbsC66GI3txI1FNooG5yQS-1lMYzzPM9YkrVUtIeqdntbA0o37V98bw_fRAnL5lD7hHgnSGe9d6CKd6eXwq0LSor2a8XfrzVSfyd5UUGxsCtnmlP9Z3wD9LKYhA</recordid><startdate>20111222</startdate><enddate>20111222</enddate><creator>Carstensen, Peter C.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications, Inc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>ILT</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20111222</creationdate><title>Controlling Unjustified, Anticompetitive State and Local Regulation: Where is Attorney General “Waldo”?</title><author>Carstensen, Peter C.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c291t-cd94b2c9f903859e8401e6c4e0f313a130c92b4a3e5e1a8f272286c3df3be6c53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Analysis</topic><topic>Attorneys general</topic><topic>Influence</topic><topic>Monopolistic competition</topic><topic>Political aspects</topic><topic>Powers and duties</topic><topic>Public choice theory</topic><topic>Public interest</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Carstensen, Peter C.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Gale OneFile: LegalTrac</collection><jtitle>Antitrust bulletin</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Carstensen, Peter C.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Controlling Unjustified, Anticompetitive State and Local Regulation: Where is Attorney General “Waldo”?</atitle><jtitle>Antitrust bulletin</jtitle><date>2011-12-22</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>56</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>771</spage><epage>821</epage><pages>771-821</pages><issn>0003-603X</issn><eissn>1930-7969</eissn><abstract>State and local regulations frequently impose unnecessary anticompetitive restrictions on the market. The challenge is to develop the legal and institutional strategies that can constrain regulation more closely to legitimate public interest goals. This article documents the range of anticompetitive interventions ranging from statutes through agency regulation and local ordinances. The theory of public choice and special interest influence in the legislative and administrative processes explain these observations. Second, the article argues that state attorneys general ought to be in the forefront of challenging such regulations, but the record reveals that often attorneys general defend such regulations. Third, the article identifies statutory, doctrinal, and institutional innovations that could ensure more focused and consistent evaluation of such anticompetitive regulations. Finally, there is acknowledgment that it may be difficult for attorneys general to become the advocates for competition against unnecessary regulation that the public interest requires.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/0003603X1105600404</doi><tpages>51</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0003-603X
ispartof Antitrust bulletin, 2011-12, Vol.56 (4), p.771-821
issn 0003-603X
1930-7969
language eng
recordid cdi_gale_infotracmisc_A288873475
source Access via SAGE; HeinOnline Law Journal Library; EBSCOhost Business Source Complete
subjects Analysis
Attorneys general
Influence
Monopolistic competition
Political aspects
Powers and duties
Public choice theory
Public interest
title Controlling Unjustified, Anticompetitive State and Local Regulation: Where is Attorney General “Waldo”?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T15%3A14%3A52IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Controlling%20Unjustified,%20Anticompetitive%20State%20and%20Local%20Regulation:%20Where%20is%20Attorney%20General%20%E2%80%9CWaldo%E2%80%9D?&rft.jtitle=Antitrust%20bulletin&rft.au=Carstensen,%20Peter%20C.&rft.date=2011-12-22&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=771&rft.epage=821&rft.pages=771-821&rft.issn=0003-603X&rft.eissn=1930-7969&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0003603X1105600404&rft_dat=%3Cgale_cross%3EA288873475%3C/gale_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A288873475&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0003603X1105600404&rfr_iscdi=true