The Trend towards Monopoly and Neoliberalism

Name:

Tutor:

Course:

Date:

The Trend towards Monopoly and Neoliberalism

The arguments raised in the articles, Chicago’s Shifting Attitude towards Concentrations of Business Power (1934-1962) and The Arc of Neoliberalism, raise questions concerning business power in the United States and the global economy. Indeed, monopoly power and Neoliberalism are two distinct subjects that have a corresponding relation based on the impact they have on competition. In the first article, Van Horn (1528) alleges that monopolization of the free market undermines the required prerequisites for democracy to succeed. In real sense, such realms of economic power deter the existence and longevity of a competitive market. The ideas expressed in the second article also express a predisposition towards those conveyed in the former. Accordingly, Centeno & Cohen (318) argue that neo-liberalist practices transfer then controls of regimes of economic power from the public to private markets. Nonetheless, the objective of the discourse is to provide a summary of both articles respectively.

In overview, the former article concentrates specifically on the origins of mercantilist legislation effects on the American economy. Van Horn uses economics in order to assess the laws that regulate non-market activities. To be more precise, Van Horn’s article delves profoundly into the changing attitude of Chicago towards the focus of business power. For a long time, the postwar Chicago institution has always conveyed a stance against the issues of business monopoly. Based on this, the respective school has illustrated a position towards antitrust legislation. In order to provide evidence concerning the changes of the institution in relation to support for monopoly power, the article assesses the period between 1934 and 1962. At first, the article offers a concise highlight of the 1930s and 1940s in which formidable economic theorists such as Henry Simons, Aaron Director, Milton Friedman and George Stigler opposed the focus of economic authority (Van Horn 1528).

Following this, the analysis further provides the opposing stance that the Chicago School had regarding business power concentrations alleging that such power needs to undergo regulation via drastic corporate restructuring and antitrust regulation. Consequently, the article follows this changing trend within the Chicago School. With the introduction of the Free Market Study between 1946 and 1952, Van Horn notes the position that the postwar Chicago School takes which is opposite to its earlier position regarding the focus of business control (Van Horn 1537). At this point, the article also emphasizes on the trend taken by the Chicago School towards support of the business power concentrations leading to the ascent of Neoliberalism within the later years (Van Horn 1540). Centeno & Cohen’s article seems to pick up the discourse from this point, even though both analyses are unrelated. The second article focuses specifically on the emergence of Neoliberalism.

The main argument presented by Centeno & Cohen is that the concept arose out of a combination of three different transformations from the ashes of the Great Depression and the postwar period. The first part of the study assesses neoliberalism’s dissemination as an economic policy. Centeno & Cohen (319) claim that the concept emerged as a technical policy meant specifically to counter the impacts that arose from World War II, which imposed negative effects such as stagflation, unemployment as well as failing foreign investment projects in developing nations on the global economy. The following part of the article focuses on the political influences that led to the development of neoliberalist practices as effective crisis contingency strategies. Based on policy debates over the globe, economic policies dependent on this ideology underwent integration in global markets gaining apparent political traction in the 1990s (Centeno & Cohen 323). Lastly, the study assesses the ascent of Neoliberalism as a hegemonic ideology.

In conclusion, both articles provide discourses concerning the predisposition towards focus of business power in America and the global economy. On one hand, the first article traces the support for monopolistic practices in America under the shifting stance of the Chicago School before and after World War II. Consequently, the proceeding article tracks down the rise of Neoliberalism in the global economy especially after the Second World War period. Nonetheless, both articles offer an interesting discourse on the correlation between Neoliberalism and monopolization of the global market.

Works Cited

Centeno, Miguel A., and Cohen, Joseph N. “The Arc of Neoliberalism.” Annual Review of Sociology 38 (2012): 317-340. Print.

Van Horn, Robert. “Chicago’s Shifting Attitude towards Concentrations of Business Power (1934-1962).” Seattle University Law Review 34.1527 (2011): 1527-1544. Print.