Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy
The Schumpeterian perspective represents a new intellectual framework for antitrust reforms that focus less on competition for competition's sake and more on enabling firm dynamic capabilities to power productivity, innovation and global competitiveness. The Schumpeter Project’s mission is to advance dynamic competition policy with boosting firm dynamic capabilities as a central concern for antitrust enforcement. (Read more.)
- Useful bookmarks: ITIF’s Monopoly Myth Series and Schumpeterian Takes on Pending Antitrust Bills.
- Stay posted by signing up for ITIF emails and checking the box for “Regulation and Antitrust” under “Innovation and Competitiveness.”
Featured Publications
Events
May 22, 2024|Register Now
Can India Regulate Its Digital Boom Without Stifling Innovation?
Join ITIF's Schumpeter Project on Competition Policy for a timely panel discussion featuring leading antitrust lawyers from India and the United States.
May 1, 2024
US v. Apple: Whither The Limits of Antitrust?
Watch now for an expert panel discussion about the merits and implications of the DOJ’s lawsuit against Apple.
April 18, 2024
The DMA in Action: Early Effects and Global Reach
Watch now for a panel discussion featuring experts from the EU, Brazil, Korea, and the United States.
January 31, 2024
The DOJ-FTC 2023 Merger Guidelines: Evolution or Revolution?
Watch now to learn more about the ongoing efforts to reform U.S. antitrust law.
December 13, 2023
US v. Google: Implications of a Landmark Trial
Watch now for an expert panel discussion on the possible outcomes and implications of this landmark antitrust case.
Staff
Director, Antitrust and Innovation Policy
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Read BioMore From the Center
May 15, 2024|Testimonies & Filings
Comments to the Indian Ministry of Corporate Affairs Regarding Digital Competition Law
Rather than allow India’s dynamic high-tech and startup ecosystem to continue to flourish, the Draft Digital Competition Bill follows the path of overbearing competition policy taken by the EU, which lacks any leading digital firms. India should instead privilege the U.S. model of markets and dynamism.
May 13, 2024|Testimonies & Filings
Comments to Brazil’s National Telecommunications Agency (Anatel) Regarding Digital Markets and Competition
Regulation in the digital sector should only be necessary to remedy market failure that cannot be addressed by the current legal framework, which simply is not true.
May 6, 2024|Press Releases
Many US Industries Need More Consolidation, Not Less, New Report Finds
Many U.S. industries would benefit from greater consolidation and economies of scale, according to a new report from the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF), the leading think tank for science and technology policy.
May 3, 2024|Blogs
A Nation With Larger Establishments Could Mean Higher Economic Productivity
Policymakers should ignore neo-Brandeisian calls to regulate or break up large companies. Another study has found large firms can benefit the economy and are crucial for optimal productivity.
May 2, 2024|Testimonies & Filings
Comments for the California Law Review Commission Study of Antitrust Law Regarding Single-Firm Conduct and Concentration
While ITIF applauds the Commission for its efforts to evaluate the adequacy of California’s competition laws and consider possible changes, this comment highlights concerns with both the single-firm and concentration reports, and specifically regarding their respective legal and economic findings.
May 1, 2024|Blogs
EU Steering in Wrong Direction With DMA Investigations
The EU Commission is charting the wrong course by investigating large American technology companies under the Digital Markets Act for competitive behavior like anti-steering rules.
May 1, 2024|Blogs
“Khanservatives” Are Wrong About Big Tech
Instead of making a Faustian bargain with neo-Brandeisians, conservatives must come to grips with what the neo-Brandeisian movement really is: a revolutionary assault on corporate America operating under the guise of “protecting democracy.”