Models on trial: antitrust experts face Daubert challenges

References

• Aydinonat, N. E. (2018). The diversity of models as a means to better explanations in economics. Journal of Economic Methodology, 25(3), 237–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2018.1488478
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bartholomew, C. J. (2014). Death by Daubert: The continued attack on private antitrust. Cardozo Law Review, 35, 2147–2198.
   Google Scholar
• Baye, M., & Wright, J. D. (2011). Is antitrust too complicated for generalist judges? The impact of economic complexity and judicial training on appeals. The Journal of Law and Economics, 54(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1086/652305
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Björnerstedt, J., & Verboven, F. (2016). Does merger simulation work? Evidence from the Swedish analgesics market. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 8(3), 125–164. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20130034
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Budzinski, O., & Ruhmer, I. (2010). Merger simulation in competition policy: A survey. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 6(2), 277–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nhp014
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cao, S. (2022). Quantifying economic eeasoning in court: Judge economics sophistication and pro-business rientation. Stigler Center Working Paper No. 321.
   Google Scholar
• Chassonnery-Zaïgouche, C. (2020). How economists entered the ‘numbers game’: Measuring discrimination in the us courtrooms, 1971–1989. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 42(2), 229–259. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837219000646
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coate, M. B., & Fischer, J. H. (2001). Can post-Chicago economics survive Daubert? Akron Law Review, 34, 795–852.
   Google Scholar
• Coate, M. B., & Fischer, J. H. (2012). Daubert, science, and modern game theory: Implications for merger analysis. Supreme Court Economic Review, 20(1), 125–182. https://doi.org/10.1086/668521
   Google Scholar
• Friedman, M. (1953). The methodology of positive economics. In M. Friedman (Ed.), Essays in positive economics (pp. 3–43). Chicago University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gavil, A. (2001). Daubert comes of age. Antitrust, 15, 6.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbard, A., & Varian, R. H. (1978). Economic models. Journal of Philosophy, 75(11), 664–677. https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil1978751111
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giocoli, N. (2020). Rejected! Antitrust economists as expert witnesses in the post-Daubert world. Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 42(2), 203–228. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1053837219000671
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grüne-Yanoff, T., & Marchionni, C. (2018). Modeling model selection in model pluralism. Journal of Economic Methodology, 25(3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2018.1488572
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Haack, S. (2005). Trial and error: The Supreme Court’s philosophy of science. American Journal of Public Health, 95(S1), S66–S73. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2004.044529
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Haack, S. (2015). The expert witness: Lessons from the U.S. experience. Humana Mente: Journal of Philosophical Studies, 28, 39–70.
   Google Scholar
• Hausman, D. (1992). The inexact and separate science of economics. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Haw Allensworth, R. (2012). Adversarial economics in antitrust litigation: Losing academic consensus in the battle of the experts. Northwestern University Law Review, 106, 1261–1306.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hindriks, F. A. (2006). Tractability assumptions and the Musgrave-Mäki typology. Journal of Economic Methodology, 13(4), 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780601048733
   Google Scholar
• Hovenkamp, H. (2005). The antitrust enterprise: Principle and execution. Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jhun, J. (2021). Modeling the possible to modeling the actual. In C. Heilmann, & J. Reiss (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of the philosophy of economics (pp. 316–326). Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Langenfeld, J., & Alexander, C. (2011). Daubert and other gatekeeping challenges of antitrust experts. Antitrust, 25, 21–28 and Appendix.
   Google Scholar
• Lopatka, J. H. (2016). Economic expert evidence: The understandable and the “huh?”. The Antitrust Bulletin, 61(3), 434–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X16657230
   Google Scholar
• Maas, H., & Svorenčík, A. (2017). “Fraught with controversy”: Organizing expertise against contingent valuation. History of Political Economy, 49(2), 315–345. https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-3876493
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäki, U. (2000). Kinds of assumptions and their truth: Shaking an untwisted F-twist. Kyklos, 53(3), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6435.00123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mäki, U. (Ed.). (2009). The methodology of positive economics: The Milton Friedman legacy. Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mäki, U. (2018). Rights and wrongs of economic modelling: Refining Rodrik. Journal of Economic Methodology, 25(3), 218–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/1350178X.2018.1488475
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mandel, M. J. (1999). Going for the gold: Economists as expert witnesses. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(2), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.13.2.113
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Martini, C. (2015). The paradox of proof and scientific expertise. Humana Mente: Journal of Philosophical Studies, 28, 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Peruzzi, E., & Cevolani, G. (2022). Defending de-idealization in economic modeling: A case study. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 52(1–2), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/00483931211049759
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Posner, R. A. (1999). The law and economics of the economic expert witness. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(2), 91–100. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.13.2.91
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiss, P. C., & Wolak, F. A. (2007). Structural econometric modeling: Rationales and examples from industrial organization. In J. Heckman, & E. E. Leamer (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics (Vol. 6A, pp. 4277–4415). Elsevier Sci. Ltd. North Holland.
   Google Scholar
• Rodrik, D. (2015). Economics rules: The rights and wrongs of the dismal science. Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Salop, S. (2021). The FTC was correct to withdraw the vertical merger guidelines. ProMarket: The publication of the Stigler Center at the University of Chicago School of Business. Retrieved from https://www.promarket.org/2021/11/22/ftc-vertical-merger-guidelines-economics-withdrawn-lina-khan-salop/
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, C. (2021a). Antitrust: What went wrong and how to fix it. Antitrust, 35, 33–45.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, C. (2021b). Vertical mergers and input foreclosure lessons from the AT&T/Time Warner case. Review of Industrial Organization, 59(2), 303–341. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11151-021-09826-x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sidak, G. (2013). Court-appointed neutral economic experts. Journal of Competition Law and Economics, 9(2), 359–394. https://doi.org/10.1093/joclec/nht011
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tirole, J. (1988). The theory of industrial organization. MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Werden, G. J. (2008). The admissibility of expert testimony. In American Bar Association-Section of Antitrust Law (Ed.), Issues in competition law and policy (pp. 801–817). Aba Book Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Werden, G. J., Froeb, L. M., & Scheffman, D. T. (2004). A Daubert discipline for merger simulation. Antitrust, 18, 89–95.
   Google Scholar
• Woodward, J. (2006). Some varieties of robustness. Journal of Economic Methodology, 13(2), 219–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501780600733376
   Google Scholar