Ordoliberalism: What we know and what we think we know
dc.contributor.author | Cole, M | |
dc.contributor.author | Hartmann, S | |
dc.date.accessioned | 2023-04-21T08:32:02Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2023-04-14 | |
dc.date.updated | 2023-04-20T19:42:45Z | |
dc.description.abstract | This article draws on direct archival evidence from the Committee responsible for drafting the Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen 1957 (GWB) to establish what the priorities and beliefs of the Ordoliberals (broadly construed) were during the mid- to late-1950s. This is done primarily by analysing the views expressed by Franz Böhm, Finance Minister Ludwig Erhard and Alfred Müller-Armack. This work is important as it challenges the current understanding of Ordoliberalism. It reveals that aspects of the current understanding of Ordoliberalism are either flawed or do not take into account the changes that occurred between the submission of the Josten Draft (1949) and the drafting of the GWB (enacted 1957). This evidence also challenges the argument that the influence of Ordoliberalism on EU competition law has been exaggerated. | en_GB |
dc.identifier.citation | Published online 14 April 2023 | en_GB |
dc.identifier.doi | https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12806 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10871/132959 | |
dc.identifier | ORCID: 0000-0003-4797-2256 (Cole, Matthew) | |
dc.language.iso | en | en_GB |
dc.publisher | Wiley | en_GB |
dc.rights | © 2023 The Authors. The Modern Law Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Modern Law Review Limited. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. | en_GB |
dc.title | Ordoliberalism: What we know and what we think we know | en_GB |
dc.type | Article | en_GB |
dc.date.available | 2023-04-21T08:32:02Z | |
dc.identifier.issn | 0026-7961 | |
dc.description | This is the final version. Available from Wiley via the DOI in this record. | en_GB |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1468-2230 | |
dc.identifier.journal | Modern Law Review | en_GB |
dc.relation.ispartof | Modern Law Review | |
dc.rights.uri | http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ | en_GB |
dcterms.dateAccepted | 2023-03-10 | |
rioxxterms.version | VoR | en_GB |
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate | 2023-04-14 | |
rioxxterms.type | Journal Article/Review | en_GB |
refterms.dateFCD | 2023-04-21T08:29:02Z | |
refterms.versionFCD | VoR | |
refterms.dateFOA | 2023-04-21T08:32:04Z | |
refterms.panel | C | en_GB |
refterms.dateFirstOnline | 2023-04-14 |
Files in this item
This item appears in the following Collection(s)
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as © 2023 The Authors. The Modern Law Review published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Modern Law Review Limited.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.