The landscape of antitrust policy in the United States has long been shaped by various schools of thought, each bringing distinct perspectives on how to maintain competitive markets and protect consumer interests. Among these, the Harvard School historically championed a proactive stance against concentrated economic power, while the New Brandeisian school has recently emerged, heralded as a modern revival of Justice Louis Brandeis’s concerns about corporate dominance.

Proponents of the New Brandeisian movement argue that it represents a significant and necessary departure from previous theories, particularly the Chicago School, by infusing antitrust discourse with broader societal and democratic concerns. However, a closer scrutiny reveals that the New Brandeisian school is not a revolutionary departure, but rather a repackaging of the Harvard School’s interventionist frameworks, cloaked in populist rhetoric………..

Both the New Brandeisian and Harvard schools share a fundamental assumption: that market concentration is invariably detrimental to competition and societal well-being. They employ the Structure-Conduct-Performance (SCP) paradigm—originally developed by the Harvard School—to analyze market dynamics. The SCP framework posits that the structure of an industry influences the conduct of firms within it, which, in turn, affects economic performance. This framework’s application by both schools is notably simplistic and deterministic. They assume a direct, and often negative, correlation between market concentration and consumer welfare, neglecting the complexities and potential benefits of large-scale operations, such as economies of scale, innovation, and enhanced product offerings.