路易斯·d·布兰代斯和新布兰代斯运动:相同点和不同点

Q2 Social Sciences Antitrust Bulletin Pub Date : 2023-06-22 DOI:10.1177/0003603X231182494
Manuel Wörsdörfer
{"title":"路易斯·d·布兰代斯和新布兰代斯运动:相同点和不同点","authors":"Manuel Wörsdörfer","doi":"10.1177/0003603X231182494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The recent antitrust discourse in the U.S. is dominated by references to Brandeis and the New Brandeis movement. While it is laudable that many researchers acknowledge Brandeis’ work and recognize its business-ethical importance, it is also a missed opportunity to refer to him en passant and not investigate his philosophy in more depth. The following sections attempt to fill this gap in the academic literature by critically evaluating—and comparing—Brandeis’ social philosophy with the one of the New Brandeis movement. The research questions of this paper are twofold: First, it analyzes the parallels and differences between Brandeis and neo-Brandeisianism. Second, it addresses the question of which references to his work are valid and legitimate and which ones are not. The paper shows that Brandeis’ work encompasses much more than just competition policy; reducing him to antitrust issues (only) does not do him justice as it ignores significant parts of his social philosophy. The paper also shows that Brandeis was skeptical of big business and big government. In contrast, the new Brandeis movement focuses solely on antibigness in the economy while ignoring Brandeis’ demand(s) in the political sector.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"68 1","pages":"440 - 459"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Louis D. Brandeis and the New Brandeis Movement: Parallels and Differences\",\"authors\":\"Manuel Wörsdörfer\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0003603X231182494\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The recent antitrust discourse in the U.S. is dominated by references to Brandeis and the New Brandeis movement. While it is laudable that many researchers acknowledge Brandeis’ work and recognize its business-ethical importance, it is also a missed opportunity to refer to him en passant and not investigate his philosophy in more depth. The following sections attempt to fill this gap in the academic literature by critically evaluating—and comparing—Brandeis’ social philosophy with the one of the New Brandeis movement. The research questions of this paper are twofold: First, it analyzes the parallels and differences between Brandeis and neo-Brandeisianism. Second, it addresses the question of which references to his work are valid and legitimate and which ones are not. The paper shows that Brandeis’ work encompasses much more than just competition policy; reducing him to antitrust issues (only) does not do him justice as it ignores significant parts of his social philosophy. The paper also shows that Brandeis was skeptical of big business and big government. In contrast, the new Brandeis movement focuses solely on antibigness in the economy while ignoring Brandeis’ demand(s) in the political sector.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antitrust Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"440 - 459\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antitrust Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X231182494\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X231182494","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

美国最近的反垄断言论主要涉及布兰迪斯和新布兰迪斯运动。尽管许多研究人员承认布兰迪斯的工作并认识到其商业伦理的重要性是值得称赞的,但这也是一个错失的机会,可以顺便提及他,而不是更深入地研究他的哲学。以下几节试图通过批判性地评价和比较布兰迪斯的社会哲学与新布兰迪斯运动的社会哲学来填补学术文献中的这一空白。本文的研究问题有两个:一是分析勃兰登主义与新勃兰登学派的异同。其次,它解决了哪些对他的作品的引用是有效和合法的,哪些不是。这篇论文表明,布兰迪斯的工作不仅仅包括竞争政策;将他归结为反垄断问题(只是)对他不公平,因为这忽略了他的社会哲学的重要部分。论文还表明,布兰迪斯对大企业和大政府持怀疑态度。相比之下,新布兰迪斯运动只关注经济中的反活动,而忽视了布兰迪斯在政治部门的需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Louis D. Brandeis and the New Brandeis Movement: Parallels and Differences
The recent antitrust discourse in the U.S. is dominated by references to Brandeis and the New Brandeis movement. While it is laudable that many researchers acknowledge Brandeis’ work and recognize its business-ethical importance, it is also a missed opportunity to refer to him en passant and not investigate his philosophy in more depth. The following sections attempt to fill this gap in the academic literature by critically evaluating—and comparing—Brandeis’ social philosophy with the one of the New Brandeis movement. The research questions of this paper are twofold: First, it analyzes the parallels and differences between Brandeis and neo-Brandeisianism. Second, it addresses the question of which references to his work are valid and legitimate and which ones are not. The paper shows that Brandeis’ work encompasses much more than just competition policy; reducing him to antitrust issues (only) does not do him justice as it ignores significant parts of his social philosophy. The paper also shows that Brandeis was skeptical of big business and big government. In contrast, the new Brandeis movement focuses solely on antibigness in the economy while ignoring Brandeis’ demand(s) in the political sector.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Antitrust Bulletin
Antitrust Bulletin Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Geographic Market Definition in Commercial Health Insurer Matters: A Unified Approach for Merger Review, Monopolization Claims, and Monopsonization Claims Do EU and U.K. Antitrust “Bite”?: A Hard Look at “Soft” Enforcement and Negotiated Penalty Settlements Wall Street’s Practice of Compelling Confidentiality of Private Underwriting Fees: An Antitrust Violation? Two Challenges for Neo-Brandeisian Antitrust Epic Battles in Two-Sided Markets
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1